Do what Unison does but for types?

-> all "meaning types" are just aliases for a universal shape

the problem is that things with the same structure (as you understand it in the moment) but different meaning will evolve in different ways

and that any kind of taxonomy breaks down (which is my bugbear with inheritance)

It interested me when Alfred Whitehead was mentioned in relation to Clojure / Rich Hickey. I followed some lectures on that philosopher during my studies and I think it's completely at odds with breaking domains down into strict taxonomies. Clojure / spec2 aligns better with this.

Why do you need to determine if something is of the same type

Data of the same shape can be trivially cast to another type even though they may be of different taxonomies

Yeah, his videos are very entertaining. His intro consistently makes me laugh. The content is interesting too.

Yeah, I don't think the cameo Babashka did today can be called ”covering” it. 😃

We recognised its a thing though 😂

There is also nbb, btw. https://github.com/babashka/nbb

SCI might be worth it's own episode. Amazing tech.

You can actually embed Reagent/Clojure code in a html tag. That still blows my mind to think about. https://github.com/kloimhardt/bb-web

woah… thats new to me 😳

Love your vids @danielamber2! Great stuff!

@danielamber2 Feel free to hit me up to cover bb :)