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

On Mon, 10 May 2010, stevan apter wrote:

>
> 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.

OMGosh!  I'm now totally confused! See you guys! I'm off to brush up
on BASIC. ;)

Just kidding!

-- 
Duke