Re: [stack] function "adjoinment"?

On Feb 9, 2010, at 9:23 PM, chris glur wrote:

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

Maybe, but not for the reasons you're presenting (e.g. some
illustrative Joy example when many far clearer and more obvious
versions exist). I do see how people could find it harder to
understand though. Hence the visualization.

The only goal of a programming language, despite popular opinion
nowadays, is not to convey ideas to other programmers. It is an
important goal, but other requirements exist. The benefits that
concatenative languages may have in terms of reasoning or the
opportunities they open up for alternative forms of memory
management are worth looking at even if they can be a bit more
challenging to use. Who said writing good programs was easy?

> 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. ?

I've no interest in such a language so I have no contributions.
I'm trying to solve different problems. I'm not sure why you
seem to be presuming that you deserve an answer.

> PS. as an engineer, I like your graphical representation,
> [we prefer diagrams to words..words] but :
> how should I comprehend "share inputs" ?

This was explained in the link I posted:
http://johnnowak.com/heap/vis.txt

Again, very provisional stuff. Just thought someone might be
interested or have seen something similar. You'd be wasting
your time to critique it at this point.

- jn