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

On May 10, 2010, at 5:27 PM, Duke Normandin wrote:

> 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?
> 
there are several reasons to start with Joy.  first, because it
is incredibly simple.  second, because it is accompanied by several
beautiful papers by manfred on the theory of computing.  in my
opinion, the ideas in those papers (and the one on concatenative
combinators by brent kirby) are more valuable than any of the 
implementations.  i'm fairly confident billy will agree.

i'm an application programmer by trade, as are many in this group,
so don't get the impression that i discount the value of a practical
tool like Factor.

and since i'm an array-head, i will recommend having a look at k.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]