[stack] Re: the concatenative wikipedia article

Slava recently created a nice description of Concatenative languages
in the following four articles:

http://www.concatenative.org/wiki/view/Concatenative%20language

http://www.concatenative.org/wiki/view/Concatenative%20language/Name%20code%20not%20values

http://www.concatenative.org/wiki/view/Concatenative%20language/Multiple%20return%20values

http://www.concatenative.org/wiki/view/Concatenative%20language/Concatenation%20is%20composition

-Adam

--- In [email protected], John Nowak <john@...> wrote:
>
> The Wikipedia article on concatenative languages has a number of
> issues that I think should be addressed. I'm willing to make the
> changes, but I'd like to make sure I'm not off-base first.
>
> I realize many of these concerns are rather tired at this point. I
> apologize. However, that doesn't change the fact that they've gone
> unresolved. Indeed, there seems to be almost a resistance to resolving
> them. I personally think that the non-applicative style of programming
> has important properties and that it would be great to have a term for
> them so I could stop redefining "concatenative" every time I talk to
> someone (including those knowledgeable about concatenative languages).
>
> Here are my issues with the article:
>
> 1. Concatenative should not be conflated with "stack-based". I have
> already shown that the counter-examples are beyond mere curiosities.
>
> 2. It should be more clearly stressed that concatenative languages are
> not applicative. The reduction of a concatenative expression is the
> simplification of one function to another function (e.g. '1 2 + + ==>
> 3 +'). Never is it necessary to deal with objects or application, and
> much is gained by not doing so (as is mentioned at http://www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/phimvt/joy/j08cnt.htm)
> .
>
> 3. There is no reason concatenative languages must use a postfix
> syntax. A prefix syntax is also a valid approach. Other syntaxes are
> useful (as I've shown recently with my infix construction syntax
> similar to that of in FL and J) but ruled out by the need for
> concatenation to always denote composition (which I think is probably
> unfortunate).
>
> 4. Not all concatenative languages have parsing words or an equivalent
> to macros. Talking about them here makes as much sense as talking
> about macros on a page about applicative programming.
>
> 5. It should be stressed that concatenative languages are function-
> level and pointfree. They also go beyond languages like Backus's FP in
> that objects are entirely removed from the language; The expression
> '3' represents a *function*, not an object.
>
> 6. I dislike the sentence "The term 'concatenative' is not universally
> accepted as a particularly useful term". It's an objectively useful
> term if some care is given to its definition; What's "universally
> accepted" is unimportant. Hell, even Slava (who says it's unimportant)
> has started concatenative.org (which lists C++ and Java as
> "interesting languages"... ugh).
>
> So, should I make the changes or should I just define a new term so I
> that can communicate with people without boring myself? I did like
> Diggins's "compositional" suggestion which is more to the point; The
> fact that it is already used in various vague ways doesn't disturb me
> too much.
>
> Sorry for bringing this up *again*, but I'm trying to write a paper
> and keep stumbling over how to describe what it is that I'm talking
> about.
>
> - John
>