Re: [stack] Cat article submission to Doctor Dobbs Journal

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Diggins" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [stack] Cat article submission to Doctor Dobbs Journal


> On Feb 10, 2008 1:38 PM, Stevan Apter <[email protected]> wrote:
>> chris:
>>
>>
>> > You keep saying concatenative languages, and I am talking about
>> > stack-based languages. I am still not sure which languages are
>> > technically concatenative (is Forth? is JVML? is PostScript?).
>>
>> i've been up and down this road so many times i'm giving names to
>> the rocks. am i wrong in thinking that the languages we're
>> concerned with (in this group) are those in which wholes are built
>> from parts by concatenation and where concatenation denotes a
>> fundamental operation, either composition or application (or
>> something else)?
>>
>> joy and its descendents satisfy that definition. other languages
>> can be restricted in various ways to satisfy it.
> 
> Hi Stevan,
> 
> This seems more or less like the definition that majority of the group
> has agreed upon. In your opinion what languages other than Joy does it
> include?

just a guess -- billy will correct me if i'm wrong:  the tacit part
of J (application), point-free haskell, one (or more?) of jot/zot/iota,
chris okasaki's flattened combinator language, lee spector's PUSH,
van Oormerssen's False.  i'm still not sure in what sense or under
what restrictions Forth or Postscript satisfy the definition.  it
would be good to be able to answer the question "is this language
concatenative, and if not, why not?"  


> 
> - Christopher
>