Dimensional analysis of units is absolutely a special case (I said "primordial example") of type systems. Proof: "constrained operations" and "notional objects

Dimensional analysis of units is absolutely a special case (I said "primordial example") of type systems. Proof: "constrained operations" and "notional objects" are very limited/somewhat concrete - "additive/comparative/conversion-y" and "measured things". Modern notions abstract both ideas. This is, however, not unimportant (not to suggest I think @10000truths said so, exactly). In educational settings one usually wants to begin with the most familiar examples and then generalize. { Why, this probably even applies to greats like Russell. :-) } Further, in attributional settings, giving general names/notions to things is often less seminal than the things one is naming. (Both are often worthy of attention, but I tend to push back when "namers get all the credit".) There is probably no single, famous big name like Russell to attach to the idea of units of measure/standard conversion/comparison. There may be a King of Olden Times who beheaded those who didn't follow his particular "system" when taxing crop growing areas or converting area to expected weights or volumes of grain/etc. ;-) In some ways the very idea of "money" itself incorporates standardized exchange/comparison within it. Money itself is taken to be pre-historic [1], though there may have been a few original "coins"/tokens of money. Little tick marks in clay ledgers may have been the first and we can be fairly sure even before all the spice trade/wars that not all crops/goods were deemed equal/additive unconverted. On the contrary, money was useful specifically to help convert. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money