I think you may have taken that statement out of context. The OP was talking about the complexity of the type implementation, not the theory behind it. The spe

I think you may have taken that statement out of context. The OP was talking about the complexity of the type implementation, not the theory behind it. The specific example he used was how a programmer needs to know exactly how some different types are passed as arguments to know what the most efficient way is, since it's not entirely consistent. EDIT: I agree with the rest of your comment, though. Languages are just tools. The whole, "Why are you using X? Y is better," thing is getting old.