Equating data structures to types is an over simplification that misses the core point.
I think the original call here is to simply think harder about the problem and avoid picking structures that'll burn you later.
For example, take Unix pipes, see how far they've traveled, how many domains, how many use cases. It's a brilliant way to visualize system building while respecting the constraints of minds and machines.
And it took Ken and others quite a while to realize something like pipes could make sense in Unix. It was not an insight easily obtained but required a bit of hustle and followup and obsession with finding the right building blocks for a system.
Equating data structures to types is an over simplification that misses the core point.
I think the original call here is to simply think harder about the problem and avoid picking structures that'll burn you later.
For example, take Unix pipes, see how far they've traveled, how many domains, how many use cases. It's a brilliant way to visualize system building while respecting the constraints of minds and machines.
And it took Ken and others quite a while to realize something like pipes could make sense in Unix. It was not an insight easily obtained but required a bit of hustle and followup and obsession with finding the right building blocks for a system.