Re: [stack] Re: Joy noob checking in!

On Mon, 10 May 2010, William Tanksley, Jr wrote:

> Duke Normandin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > John Cowan wrote:
> >> If you want practical application or large/growing ecosystem, then yes.
> >> Joy is all about getting the abstraction right.
> > Not sure what you mean by "getting the abstraction right"?
>
> I'm not sure. I'd have said that Joy is about starting to explore the
> theory for the first time. I don't think Joy's been modified when "the
> abstraction" turned out to be wrong. (Am I wrong?)

So you're saying that Joy was indeed flawed right from the onset?
The point is moot with me anyway, as I'm convinced that exploration of
concatenative language will proceed with Factor.

[snip]

> One extreme example of a language modification was when Factor
> replaced 'dip' and stack shufflers (swap, rot, and so on) with the
> combinators in the cleave/spread/apply family -- stack shuffling was
> assumed to be essential to stack languages, but those combinators can
> often make it unneeded.

I see! Thanks for clearing that up!

-- 
duke