In the SML/OCaml world there's something like that: there is a difference between types and modules, and functions (from types to types) and functors (from module to module). Work was done on 1ML to unify everything: https://people.mpi-sws.org/~rossberg/1ml/. An extract:
> In this "1ML", functions, functors, and even type constructors are one and the same construct; likewise, no distinction is made between structures, records, or tuples. Or viewed the other way round, everything is just ("a mode of use of") modules. Yet, 1ML does not require dependent types, and its type structure is expressible in terms of plain System Fω, in a minor variation of our F-ing modules approach.
> An alternative view is that 1ML is a user-friendly surface syntax for System Fω that allows combining term and type abstraction in a more compositional manner than the bare calculus.
On the other hand, from the "engineer" point of view, all abstractions melting into one may not be desirable. It's nice to be able to use weak abstractions for simple stuff and powerful abstractions for more powerful stuff. Being exposed to the full complexity of your language all the time sounds like a recipe for disaster.
> In this "1ML", functions, functors, and even type constructors are one and the same construct; likewise, no distinction is made between structures, records, or tuples. Or viewed the other way round, everything is just ("a mode of use of") modules. Yet, 1ML does not require dependent types, and its type structure is expressible in terms of plain System Fω, in a minor variation of our F-ing modules approach.
> An alternative view is that 1ML is a user-friendly surface syntax for System Fω that allows combining term and type abstraction in a more compositional manner than the bare calculus.
On the other hand, from the "engineer" point of view, all abstractions melting into one may not be desirable. It's nice to be able to use weak abstractions for simple stuff and powerful abstractions for more powerful stuff. Being exposed to the full complexity of your language all the time sounds like a recipe for disaster.