Re: [stack] Re: Concatenative Research

John Nowak scripsit:

> I don't think that's part of the essence of Joy. It has nothing to do
> with Manfred's goals... so far as I know. More on that later.

I'm not sure that Reynolds's analyses had much to do with Peter Naur's
intentions either.

> In either case, why not simply offer an 'eval' function that converts a
> list to an opaque quotation? You can then choose whatever is appropriate
> based on the problem instead of being locked in to a language without
> the ability to form abstractions.

If I want opaque abstractions, I know where to find them.  As I said,
Lisp tries to do without opaque abstractions but fails.  Other languages
don't try.  Joy succeeds.

> Referring to static typing as fashionable is silly. It's just the
> opposite nowadays if anything.

I don't mean among programmers, I mean among CS/PLT researchers.  See any
given LtU.

> Either way, it's not being "sacrificed" just for typing. The problem
> with non-opaque quotations is that they destroy equational reasoning. In
> a Joy program, can you replace 'swap drop' with 'nip'? The answer is,
> "it depends". It depends on if it's in a quotation or not, and if it
> is, if the quotation may, at some point, be manipulated as a list.

Quite so.

-- 
The man that wanders far                        [email protected]
from the walking tree                           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --first line of a non-existent poem by:         John Cowan