Re: [stack] the concatenative wikipedia article

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 4:18 PM, John Nowak wrote:

>
> On Jan 2, 2009, at 7:07 PM, John Nowak wrote:
>
> > '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.
>
> In retrospect, this is a pretty flawed analogy.
>
> Perhaps it is worthwhile for the article to say that the term
> "concatenative" is relatively new and its meaning is not well-
> established. That's different than saying it isn't useful, which I
> think it clearly is (as we, you know, use it).
>
> - John
>

That sounds reasonable.

FWIW, I think of Joy and Factor when I think of concatenative.  I would
describe Forth as a precursor.

Joe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]