Re: [stack] What does "concatenative" actually mean?

> I thought we were talking about "Joy". Of course I agree that Joy is
> pure if you take out all the impure functions. The trouble is that
> you're left with a language that's useless.
>

*that* sir, is where we disagree!

i am attracted to *pure* joy because of its many (theoretical)  
properties.

in a sense, enchilada is essentially a pure joy, with some more  
powerful primitives.

i guess my design goals are just different from yours.

you think types will make the difference.
i think immutability will make the difference.

granted, enchilada looks like an experiment,  but i'm confident that  
immutability will prove *much* more important than types in the near  
future.

- robbert