> In our notation, it's just drop dup (^2) + (^2) - abs. Simple, readable, beautiful. Considering how the author is not presenting a language for stack manipul

> In our notation, it's just drop dup (^2) + (^2) - abs. Simple, readable, beautiful. Considering how the author is not presenting a language for stack manipulation, but for defining functions of fixed arity, I fail to see how that style is supposed to be simpler or more readable than the usual formulation, in the syntax of your choice, for example: fun x y z -> x^2 + y^2 - abs y > programming is finally liberated from von-Neumann style No, it's not. Not until you show me how a sorting algorithm (say) written in that FP/FL (J?)-inspired style is just as readable, but with less potential bugs. Also, not until you show me how a complex algorithm written in that style can be more easily synthesized to a FPGA or some other non-von Neumann computing platform. I will agree that ';' is a nice idea, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In particular, the article fails to explain what device is supposed to replace recursion or unbounded iteration, that allow Turing-completeness (and modern software as a consequence) to exist in the first place.