[stack] Re: the concatenative wikipedia article

Also, concatenative.org is editable by the public as well if you register.

--- In [email protected], Adam <hiatoms@...> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
>