4 ms·
Lots of languages reify types as classes, but that's not necessary. You don't need classes to have types. Using classes also leaves entire segments of type-exp
by masklinn 4y ago
Lots of languages reify types as classes, but that's not necessary. You don't need classes to have types.
Using classes also leaves entire segments of type-expression on the table or makes them unwieldy e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_union
So it's orthogonal, classes are just one possible implementation of types.