3 ms·
> Well...that's still just a type. By this argument I might as well call everything a 'thing' since everything is still just a thing. Different names for subc
by chrisseaton 5y ago
> Well...that's still just a type.
By this argument I might as well call everything a 'thing' since everything is still just a thing.
Different names for subclasses of things that already have names is useful.
I get this discussion with people who don't like the word 'transpiler' because they reason it's just another compiler. Yeah nobody's denying that - it's a subclass of compiler with a specific name.
- jhgb 5y agoTo be fair, "lispy" thinking promoted the notion of closure property in me - just like a list of lists is still a list, a type composed of other types, be it by conjunction or by disjunction, is still a type, and its components are types as well. Uniform treatment seems more logical specifically for programming it into a machine since it eliminates special cases. So I'm tempted to disagree with the assertion that I may need special cases for this.