Re: [stack] Properties of Concatenative langauges and Forth

> 
>> FWIW: I like Steven Apter's informal definition a lot. Concatenative
>> means Joy-like. I am really worrying so much about definitions because
>> I am interested in trying to get at the heart of what makes Joy so
>> darn interesting from a theoretical stand-point, so that I can talk to
>> academics and say "see, Joy is not like your language!"
> 
> It's kind of odd to say that Postscript and Forth are Joy-like.
> 
> But really, as long as you're just going by examples, you don't have a
> theory. That's okay; but it's not enough to make something interesting
> from a theoretical standpoint.

programming language inquiry does feel more like classifying beetles and
orchids than it does like physics.

> 
>> - Christopher
> 
> -Wm
>