3 ms·

Oh dear. You might be right about "syntax", but definitely not "type". There're all kinds of arguments over what a "type" is; "stack" is probably safe; "message

Oh dear. You might be right about "syntax", but definitely not "type". There're all kinds of arguments over what a "type" is; "stack" is probably safe; "message", eh, has different definitions in reference to different programming languages, but I think everybody knows that and won't be confused in the context of any particular language, so that probably counts. But definite;y not "type". That's a can of worms.

rtoal 11y ago
For those interested in debates about the word "type" here is just one out of a million online discussions that have taken place: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/6113 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/6113 It started with an argument over what a "dependent type" was. That said, type-as-interface and class-as-implementation gets some traction because it is just vague enough. Re parallelism and concurrency, a similar vague-enough distinction would be: parallelism is the state of things happening at once, while concurrency is the coordination and management of parallel activities? But I agree that a lot of people don't really make the distinction, and use the terms interchangeably, which is something Rob Pike pointed out (in the context of Go, here: http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism)
- ihnorton 11y ago
  This article by Tomas Petricek goes into some interesting historical background and philosophical questions regarding types: http://tomasp.net/blog/2015/against-types/ http://tomasp.net/blog/2015/against-types/