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

On Mar 3, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Robbert Dalen wrote:

>> 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.
>
> i am attracted to *pure* joy because of its many (theoretical)
> properties... i guess my design goals are just different from yours.


I'm certainly attracted to joy for similar reasons. However, also want  
to be able to read and write files on unix. Call me crazy.

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

I look forward to it. I'm sure you'll be right if you can make it  
work, although I'll admit that I'm skeptical about the "working" part.

Please keep us informed of your progress.

- John