Follow-up post explaining research rationale

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 15.05.2016 05:02, Joe Duarte wrote:
> Type systems are quite arbitrary and primitive

That may apply to the popular ones.

> -- we could've moved to  real-world types

The "real world" is complex and there are bound to be some modeling 
limitations. I don't really see what "real-world" type is supposed to mean.

> a long time ago, which would be much safer and a hell
> of a lot more productive.

How would that work/what's the difference?

> Type theory imports the barbarism of legacy type systems  and doesn't
> question the assumption that the universe is best carved into ints and
> floats

?
Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory
The C type system isn't something one would use as a basis to make 
statements about what type theory does and doesn't do.

In the end, somebody needs to think about representation. On top of 
that, there should be some abstraction, and existing languages already 
target this to varying extents.

What is the new insight here?

> at the source code level, instead of prices, km, or seconds

'km' and 'second' are actually values. Distance and duration are types.
Also, what is a price, precisely?