Re: [stack] Jon Purdy: Why Concatenative Programming Matters

It's going to take me a few days to work through: -
/2012/02/why-concatenative-programming-matters.html
but I'm sending some immediate feedback, because I was grappling with this
exact issue lately.

IMO one should state up-front:
  BECAUSE WE WANT MORE RESULTS WITH LESS EFFORT.
That's what Backus' paper did.
And then one should backwards-chain eg.
because 'serial-data-transformation' means that when you do stage N, you.
don't need to be concerned about earlier stages except N-1.
Minimal-coupling's value is founded on human psychology: less to remember.

And [for high level programming] each data-transformer is a stand-alone
module, whose cost can be amortized over multiple projects.

When you explain how a TV receiver works, you start from the picture;
not from the RF-amplifier.

I particularly appreciate the ascii-diagrams of how the 'impedance
matching' of the functions works.  Last week I wasted many hours
researching how monads achieve this, but right now I haven't got a clue.

Thanks,

== Chris Glur.


On 2/13/12, John Nowak <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://evincarofautumn.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-concatenative-programming-matters.html
>