Re: [stack] language hierarchy

Christopher Diggins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Terminology such as "value-level" and "function-level" are outdated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 communicate the
> same sentiment. FWIW I agree with what you are saying, just
> nit-picking how you are saying it.

I don't see that any terms here became outdated; they simply never
were heavily used. Few of the languages allegedly inspired by FP and
FL actually used their core ideas (especially this one).

> > 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.

But it doesn't, I think. Concatenation of terms in Haskell perhaps
offers those terms for partial application; but the application only
happens if the first term denotes a function with a free variable.
Otherwise ... Well, I'm not sure; is it a syntax error? At any rate,
it's not application.

I don't think the path you're trying to walk will be fruitful. The
problem is that any language written in plain text MUST do something
when terms are concatenated (because that's the only thing you can DO
with plain text); trying to call a language "concatenative" merely
because it "does something" *in some cases* when terms are
concatenated is so vague it describes ALL languages.

A language that deserves the name "concatenative" should respond to
concatenation in the same way every time.

> - Christopher Diggins

-Wm