Hacker News Reader

His summary ends with:

"Rather than seeking the elusive definition of what is a type (which does not exist), I believe that we should look for innovative ways to think about and work with types that do not require an exact formal definition."

So he doesn't want to stop at your point 1, but rather wants to find generalizations that apply to the commonality between these variations.

View on HN

I thought he was calling for exactly the opposite? A generalization that applies between contexts would require formal definition, no?

No. There may be some magic formal definition that would work between contexts. Until we have such a definition, though, he says it's better (at least between contexts) to work off of an informal, inexact definition, and to be aware that you are doing so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com