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

William Tanksley, Jr scripsit:

> 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?)

The context has been lost here (my fault): I was talking about the
data/code duality which Joy keeps to more closely than any concatenative
language I know.  In Joy, lists and closures (not that there's anything
to close over) are the same thing, so you can create functions
using list manipulation and then execute them.  As far as I know,
this isn't possible in Cat or Factor.

> 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.

Joy isn't intended to be minimal, and has had both for a long time.

-- 
We are lost, lost.  No name, no business, no Precious, nothing.  Only empty.
Only hungry: yes, we are hungry.  A few little fishes, nassty bony little
fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death.  So wise they are; so just,
so very just.  --Gollum        [email protected]  http://ccil.org/~cowan