Re: [stack] Tribute to Slava Pestov

--- In [email protected], John Carter <john.carter@...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:34 PM, maggethun <phimvt@...> wrote:
> > Dear Friends,
.
.
.
> > And what should happen to Joy?
> 
> The Joy of Joy to me was always it's startling simplicity.
> 
> It was a much needed clarion call indicating, nay DEMONSTRATING, that
> the march to ever more complex languages is ill advised.
> 
> Even better, Joy demonstrated that simplicity carried deep value.
> 
> As such I hope it is always around to admonish the industry.

I tried to take that even further, in my work on Furphy (see http://users.beagle.com.au/peterl/furphy.html). But with that I was not aiming at a language directly, but on the one hand to see if the testbed approach gave rise to features that might be useful in Forth (I think it did, but not very useful), and on the other hand I wanted to strip the basis down to the simplest possible to ensure consistency and fewer special cases to test during implementation - but after that I wanted to put syntactic sugar on for programmer convenience. It looks uncomfortably impractical without that syntactic sugar, though it has all the power necessary, and in fact ANY source compiles to something if there is no syntactic sugar. P.M.Lawrence.