Re: [stack] the concatenative wikipedia article

On Jan 2, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Joe Bowbeer wrote:

> Keep in mind that wikipedia is not where new definitions should be  
> blazed.

Agreed, but I don't think that's what we're doing. We're trying to  
correct a definition that has obvious deficiencies. Given the nature  
of things, I think the discussion we're having now is about as good of  
a "source" as you're going to get.

> The articles should be written in layman's terms, from a neutral  
> point of
> view, and supported by citations.

The "layman's terms" requirement is not so clear. Go look at the page  
on type theory and tell me that it's in layman's terms. Do you have  
any suggestions for how the article I've proposed might be simplified?

> Can anyone find a reference for the statement that "concatenative"  
> is not
> universally accepted as a useful term?

I've not been able to find anything. The only thing I've seen along  
this lines has been casual comments in the #concatenative chat room on  
freenode. In either case, I don't think it really belongs in the  
article. I don't think "dynamically typed" is a good term either, but  
we're stuck with it. The same goes for "strong typing" which is used  
to mean almost anything.

- John