Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?

We seem to agree that 'human factor' is prime in compter-productivety.
And that its hard to analyse/talk-about.
But as JFK said "we're not doing it because it's easy .."

So when reading :
http://concatenative.org/wiki/view/Concatenative%20language/Name
   %20code%20not%20values
and appreciating some advantages of 'cat', when I felt very uncomfortable
with: ----------
> extract
  Here is another dataflow pattern:
var x = ...;
bar(x,foo(x));

   In Factor, we call this dup. If the value x is at the top of the
   stack,
dup foo bar

   applies foo to x, then applies bar to x and the result from foo.
> end extract ===========
 I decided to dig deeper, and found:

The reason why this is BAD compared to a blok-structured procedural langs.
is that it doesn't 'express in the problem domain notation'.
YOU have to 'factor' instead of writing in the problem-domain
notation, and allowing
the compiler to factor [for optimisation if it 'wants' to].

Ie. if I write: UsePaintColorFor (red, red(dog)), I'm writing ito the
problem-domain:
'what colour paint to use on what item'. And I'm not interested in optimising
technically that 'red' can be factored out.

This is the same 'problem' as with forth: I have to do the stack
shuffling, instead
of having the compiler do it.

Thanks,

== Chris Glur.