Re: [stack] language hierarchy

> > 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.

That statement is simply false.

See: http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/exps.html
"Function application is written e1 e2."

> 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);

False. The following is not simply invalid C:

"12 13"

Notice the concatenation of terms!

> 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.

That is not true. See: C, Java, C++, Pascal, Algol, etc. etc. etc.

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

Whatever response you require in your definition, be it application,
composition, or some other operation, will be arbitrary: hence
confusing.

- Christopher