It was just when I got up this morning (thinking about http://arclanguage.org/item?id=14253) that I realized what you were suggesting wasn't just a syntactic thing of putting objects before methods, but doing away with types altogether. You're saying the language shouldn't allow us to say isa x 'table, only responds_to x tableness (http://arclanguage.org/item?id=14258).
So yeah sometimes it takes people a while to digest the implications of a solution (http://arclanguage.org/item?id=14264), but sometimes they just haven't understood what you're saying :)
What I'm suggesting is to get rid of the current view of types. The `type` and `annotate` and `isa` functions would still be used, just for a different purpose: defining interfaces.
So in that sense, yes, you're right. But it's not to the extreme of rocketnia; I'm merely suggesting to change how they're used.
Hmm, I wonder if you're getting Pauan and me mixed up. >.> I'm against 'isa and 'type almost altogether, but I think Pauan considers 'type to be part of the high-level interface of a value:
I consider it to be a part of an interface. If we're using duck typing (which I recommend), what happens when two functions define different behavior, but with the same names? All sorts of subtle bugs ensue. But by leveraging the type mechanism, we can group these differing behaviors into interfaces, avoiding the problem completely.
