On 15.05.2016 05:02, Joe Duarte wrote:
Type systems are quite arbitrary and primitive
That may apply to the popular ones.
-- we could've moved to real-world types
The "real world" is complex and there are bound to be some modeling
limitations. I don't really see what "real-world" type is supposed to mean.
a long time ago, which would be much safer and a hell
of a lot more productive.
How would that work/what's the difference?
Type theory imports the barbarism of legacy type systems and doesn't
question the assumption that the universe is best carved into ints and
floats
?
Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory
The C type system isn't something one would use as a basis to make
statements about what type theory does and doesn't do.
In the end, somebody needs to think about representation. On top of
that, there should be some abstraction, and existing languages already
target this to varying extents.
What is the new insight here?
at the source code level, instead of prices, km, or seconds
'km' and 'second' are actually values. Distance and duration are types.
Also, what is a price, precisely?
