1. 2

Article goes from types in programming language to philosophical type theory chasing more precise definitions for just what the types in programming languages are. Some reasons why defining them extensionally as sets of values that belong to the type doesn’t really work out. A better abstract definition might be a function that recognizes objects belonging to the type.


  2. 1

    This is off-topic for the post, and I am definitely going to comment substantively once I finish reading what looks like a very interesting post, but for now, I really just want to make a public service announcement, to anyone who might be reading this and designs websites at all:


    For god’s sake, that font is a display font, meant for giant headings in 100px size, not body text! (Yes, this does make me sympathsize with people who turn off webfonts.)

    1. 2

      Can you ELI5 why this is bad?

      1. 2

        Totally. It’s very simple:

        Raleway was originally released only in 100 weight, a.k.a. “Thin”—the thinnest weight most fonts are released in. (It was later expanded to a full set of weights by Google Fonts.) It’s a beautiful font. It’s become fashionable, in web design circles.

        But at weight 100, it’s very thin. At body text sizes, it’s so thin as to be unreadable, even on Macs. Using such a thin font for body text is foolish. There’s no reason for it. People do it because they’re following a design fad, without even understanding that fad—Raleway in 100 weight makes a good font for headers, and other text in large point sizes, and that’s what makes it popular (you can see it being put to good use in the page header of Slate Star Codex, for instance)—that’s what a “display font” is for. For body text, a heavier weight of font is called for! (Why not use a heavier weight of Raleway itself, for example? It’s available from Google Fonts! For free!)

        1. 2

          Checked the font, the thinnest version in the font render page does look nasty, but that’s not what I see on the page. Here’s what the weight renders and the article text look like for me.

          1. 1

            Interesting! That’s… mildly better, though still not heavy enough for readability, in my view. Perhaps they serve a heavier weight to non-Macs (I seem to recall your OS of choice being some sort of Linux?).

    Recent Comments