In Haskell mooing is an impure side effect. It has to be handled with a special design pattern - which recursively generates further side effects, including an infinite number of online tutorials which fail to explain what it does.
In Assembly, there is no cow, no mooing, there's a bunch of places where parts of cows and moos may or may not be stored. It's up to you to pick the parts of the cows and moos in the correct order, then send the numbers representing the places where the cow and moo parts are stored to a magic box that interprets your sequence of numbers and puts the cow into the correct order after which you jump over to the cow and tickle its belly until it moos.
In Swift, if cow is a reference type you all share a cow that moos whoever asks, but if cow is a value type then you all have your own copy of a cow that only moos for you.
I watched it, very much looking for some illumination. But it was just an exhaustive and formal definition, not giving any insight (and not appearing to attempt to)
Maybe I missed something, or maybe I need to watch more. Can you explain why you recommend this segment in more detail?
Having watched both, I believe the parent comment meant the talk they linked. The first 20 minutes has some talk about representation and type and meaning.
Both talks are interesting. Both are from a very C++ perspective, particularly the one you suggest. That doesn't make them wrong, by any means. Much of it generalizes, although depending on your background it might take varying amounts of effort to understand the generalizations.
In the first talk in particular, I think he conflates (in a small way) type with representation in a way that's... not... ideal? But I don't think it does a lot of harm to the talk; he has very interesting things to say particularly about representation.
Some of the point of both talks overlaps with the common admonishment to "make illegal states unrepresentable", but I don't think any fully implies the other.
For a very different perspective on types, I highly recommend watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U3lV5VPmOU, although I don't highly recommend actually programming this way.
I ended up watching the two videos from Sean Parent mentioned here and they are great! His explanations are simple but touch important considerations we should have about type, especially when we begin to create some ADT. Thanks a lot for that!
Why does English has all those random "s" at the end of the Greek-borrowed words? AFAIK, most other languages that borrowed the same words don't have those.
"The morphology of English words like dependence, linguistics, and news suggests that English has an /-s/ suffix forming certain kinds of abstract nouns not used as plurals. While dependence and dependents are homophones, the former takes singular verb agreement, as do linguistics and news, and the latter takes plural. We argue that English has a highly productive derivational suffix /-s/ that creates abstract nouns from adjectives, dependence from dependent + /-s/, linguistics from linguistic + /-s/, and news from new + /-s/. While this suffix originated in the Latin present participle, the sources of a modern /-s/ came into English through extensive borrowing from Latin and French as well as through loan translation and borrowing of Greek words, but then it combined with existing English /-s/ that marked plural or genitive. Orthographic, phonological, morphological, and semantic evidence suggests that this modern /-s/ arose from several distinct sources that came together as a single suffix in the early 171h century."
In Self, you have a cow. You ask the cow to moo. It moos.
In Java, you have a cow. You construct a CowMooFactory to create an MooIpml. The MooImpl moos.
In Python, you have a cow. You ask it to moo. It quacks.
In C, you have a pointer to a cow. You ask it to moo. Segmentation fault (core dumped).