On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 7:01:37 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote: > Yes, and all of that is because, the world has not settled on some > simple facts. It needs an understanding of type system. It's been > throwing terms around, some of which are well-defined, but others, > not: there has been enormous cross-breeding that has made mutts out > of everybody and someone's going to have to eat a floppy disk for > feigning authority where there wasn't any.
Objects in programming languages (or 'values' if one is more functional programming oriented) correspond to things in the world. Types on the other hand correspond to our classifications and so are things in our minds. So for the world 'to settle' on a single universal type system is about as nonsensical and self contradictory as you and I having the same thoughts. To see how completely nonsensical a classification system of a so-called alien culture is, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_Emporium_of_Benevolent_Knowledge And then reflect that the passage is implying that CONVERSELY our natural/obvious/FACTual classifications would appear similarly nonsensical to them. The same in the world of programming languages: Here's an APL session $ ./apl Welcome to GNU APL version 1.0 1 + 2 3 1 + 2 3 4 3 4 5 1 = 2 0 1 2 3 = 2 3 4 0 0 0 1 = 1 2 3 1 0 0 2 ≥ 1 2 3 1 1 0 a perfectly good (and for many of us old-timers a very beautiful) type system but completely incompatible with anything designed in the last 40 years! [Hell it does not even have a prompt! Also note the character-set (≥ not >=) -- long before unicode not an emasculated deference to ASCII -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
