[stack] Re: Joy's relationship to FP + a Joy variant with combining forms

--- In [email protected], "William Tanksley, Jr"
<wtanksleyjr@...> wrote:
>
> John Nowak <john@...> wrote:
> > In short, Joy is higher order and based on composition, and FP is
> > first order and based on application. What I'm wondering is what a
> > first order language based on composition would look like.
> 
> > One thing to note is that a combining form for quotation is no longer
> > needed since it is impossible to create objects that represent
> > functions.
> 
> Hmm. So is Forth a first-order language based on composition? Seems
> that way. Mind you, Forth wasn't designed with that in mind, so its
> syntax is a hodge-podge, but it does seem like its semantics are
> comparable.
> 
> I'm tempted to muck about with defining a suite of words in Forth that
> would give it the syntax you describe. Maybe after I get my current
> project into releasable form.

Just as a reminder, my occasional work on Furphy is about that:
http://users.beagle.com.au/peterl/furphy.html - PML.