Re:Why concatenative programming matters (2012)
by layer8 on Sunday July 17, 2022 @09:35AM
(#32126624)
It’s not optional if you want partial application/implicit composition. You can certainly have multiple syntaxes within the same language, but you can’t get the benefits of concatenative languages without also getting the drawbacks.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why concatenative programming matters (2012)
by vitiral on Sunday July 17, 2022 @12:09PM
(#32128029)
Interesting, I hadn't actually considered partial composition, since my language is very "at the metal" and partial composition isn't possible (or rather would have to have a macro and data-structure built around it). That's a good point for a "functional-style" language though.
Re:Why concatenative programming matters (2012)
by adastra22 on Sunday July 17, 2022 @02:20PM
(#32129489)
Partial compilation is pretty core to concatenative languages. I don’t know how you can call yours one without it.
Re:Why concatenative programming matters (2012)
by vitiral on Sunday July 17, 2022 @05:16PM
(#32131378)
You mean partial _application_. The author called FORTH a concatenative language, and FORTH definitely doesn't have partial application. In fact, FORTH doesn't even have a type system. Perhaps this is a miscategorization?
fngi does have a type system which modifies a stack. However, it will be lacking many high-level type system features, being similar (but smaller and lighter-weight) than golang. Not totally sure if it qualifies or not.