Re: [stack] function "adjoinment"?

]> Is he really trying to dispute that a joy implementation of factorial
]> is less cognitively clear than the lisp or algol direct translation of
]> the pseudo code which the author directly GAVE?

]No. Your reading comprehension is just very poor (in all honesty).

So should I comprehend that joy-syntax is less comprehendable
[with the normal back ground of reading plain text] than lisp/algol ?

Can you make any contibution to my several TECHNICAL questions,
starting with opinons of the viability of cat-like 'meta-langauge-ing'
functions which have been already built in a language which doesn't
require manual shuffling. ?

NB. I say 'cat-like' since:
* there seems to still be discussions about names;
* I mean the data-flow paradigm, and especially where there are no globals;
    so that at stage N the programmer doesn't need to know/see what happened
  in the previous N-1 functions  i.e. effective information hiding.

== Chris Glur.

PS. as an engineer, I like your graphical representation,
[we prefer diagrams to words..words] but :
-------------------------------
   then their composition would be this:
     IN
      |
   .--o--------.
   |     F     |
   |--o-----o--|
      |     |
   .--o-----o--.
   |     G     |
   |--o--------|
      |
     OUT

   and their concatenation would be this:
     IN          IN    IN
      |           |     |
   .--o--------.--o-----o--.
   |     F     |     G     |
   |--o-----o--|--o--------|
      |     |     |
     OUT   OUT   OUT

   Composition indicates a dependence (e.g. G is dependent on the
output of F) that
   requires sequential evaluation whereas concatenation indicates an
independence (e.g. F
   and G do not share inputs) that allows for parallel evaluation.
Both operations are
   associative.
---------------------
 how should I comprehend "share inputs" ?