Re: [stack] language hierarchy
"Christopher Diggins" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.concatenative |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Dec 5, 2007 2:04 AM, John Nowak <[email protected]> wrote: > Composition in Joy isn't value-level; it's a function-level operation. > (Of course, Joy also has a function named 'compose' that operates on > values and is value-level.) FL had many of these functional forms; Joy > has composition as the only functional form in terms of which programs > are written. More on this later... Terminology such as "value-level" and "function-level" are outdated and are very uncommon in modern literature on programming language theory. You seem to be saying that composition is part of the abstract syntax in Joy and application isn't, and that in a language like Haskell application is part of the abstract syntax and composition isn't. I think that would be a more effective way to communictate the same sentiment. FWIW I agree with what you are saying, just nit-picking how you are saying it. .... > As I'd not consider Haskell composable, I'd not consider it > concatenative either. So concatenation of terms in Haskell denotes application, but it isn't considered a concatenative language according to your definition. Try explaining that to a random group of programmer or computer scientists and see what their reaction is. - Christopher Diggins