Re: [stack] sweetening concatenative syntax

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Nowak" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [stack] sweetening concatenative syntax


> On Mar 7, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Stevan Apter wrote:
> 
>> but if the language is incapable of expressing a well-formed thought
>> because the type-system prevents that, then so much the worse for  
>> typing.
>> that is, i start with clear and distinct idea of the algorithm and its
>> data-structures, and then must work around limits on expressibility  
>> created
>> by the type-system ... ?
> 
> It's all a question of how much complexity the type system adds and  
> how much it gets in your way compared to how much it helps you out.  
> Before you start worrying that the type system will stop you from  
> expressing things in clear ways, it's probably better to get some  
> experience with the type system in question first. You may be  
> surprised that it doesn't get in the way much at all.

yes, i think that's reasonable.  my first test is:  can it manage
a polyvalent map combinator?  bzzzzt!

ok, seriously (but i wasn't being altogether facetious just now)
my suspicion, which lacks sufficient evidence to be an opinion or
a belief, is that an adequate type system for an array language is
much more difficult to achieve than one for a scalar language, and since i
am a devoted arrayhead, the bar is pretty high for me:  no convenience
offered by any statically-typed scalar language will offset the advantages i
derive from any dynamically-typed array language.

> 
> - John
>