The article you linked makes little sense to me. They do mention Clojure's core.typed as an example of the "Curry perspective", as opposed to the "Church persp

The article you linked makes little sense to me. They do mention Clojure's core.typed as an example of the "Curry perspective", as opposed to the "Church perspective", so I decided to check that out. The core.typed user guide and it uses the same definition[1] of type that I'm familiar with from "Church" type theory. It even makes the same observation that Clojure is unityped! It seems to me that core.typed does not use a "different" type theory at all. Rather, it is a testament to the great extensibility of the Lisps that a type system can be bolted on as a library. Perhaps unfortunately, most languages are not so flexible. [1]: https://github.com/clojure/core.typed/wiki/User-Guide#what-are-types https://github.com/clojure/core.typed/wiki/User-Guide#what-a... P.S.: I re-read Harper's original unitype article, and it does seem pretty combative. I still don't consider the term pejorative myself. I dislike the term, but because of its lack of utility above any other reason.