I'm almost certain I've read this article before, but I think I've read a lot more about types since then. In particular, this line is hilarious:
> I’m using the word kind on purpose, there, because Simonyi mistakenly used the word type in his paper, and generations of programmers misunderstood what he meant.
It sure doesn't sound like Simonyi was the one making a mistake here! It sounds like Hungarian notation is what you use to compensate for missing types; it got its bad reputation from people using it for types that the language already provides, because that's easier.
> I’m using the word kind on purpose, there, because Simonyi mistakenly used the word type in his paper, and generations of programmers misunderstood what he meant.
It sure doesn't sound like Simonyi was the one making a mistake here! It sounds like Hungarian notation is what you use to compensate for missing types; it got its bad reputation from people using it for types that the language already provides, because that's easier.