3 ms·

You're not the only one to observe this. It was observed and explored by Manfred von Thun with Joy, a purely functional programming language based on Forth. Mod

You're not the only one to observe this. It was observed and explored by Manfred von Thun with Joy, a purely functional programming language based on Forth. Modern "concatenative" languages continue this tradition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenative_programming_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenative_programming_lang...

carapace 8y ago
I've been working with Joy for a few years now and I have to say that it seems to me to combine the best parts of Forth and Lisp. It's ridiculously elegant.
- garmaine 8y ago
  Do you have a link to whatever project you are working on? I'm interested in Joy but not aware of anyone working on or with it in recent decades.
  - carapace 8y ago
    Sure! I developed an interpreter for Joy in Continuation-Passing Style in Python: http://joypy.osdn.io/ http://joypy.osdn.io/ I had just implemented type inference[1] when I got smashed over the brain by Prolog. So now the Python code is in limbo because the Prolog implementation of Joy is blindingly elegant[2]. In Prolog, the Joy interpreter is also the Joy type inferencer.[2] The compiler (from Joy expressions to new Prolog rules) is five lines long.[2] [1] http://joypy.osdn.io/notebooks/Types.html http://joypy.osdn.io/notebooks/Types.html [2] https://osdn.net/projects/joypy/scm/hg/Joypy/blobs/tip/thun/thun.pl https://osdn.net/projects/joypy/scm/hg/Joypy/blobs/tip/thun/...
    - garmaine 8y ago
      Thanks! Yes, there's a real connection between concatinative languages and logic languages. In some sense you can think of a concatinative logic language as Joy with the ability to push "unknown" values onto the stack, as well as a few constraint manipulatives. That's somewhat orthogonal, but it makes sense an interpreter for Joy would be quite compact in prolog. Thanks for the links, I'll review your work later!
      - carapace 8y ago
        Cheers! You might also like: http://conal.net/papers/compiling-to-categories/ http://conal.net/papers/compiling-to-categories/ He transforms Haskell to a point-free form that's suspiciously like Joy... ;-)

carapace 8y ago

I've been working with Joy for a few years now and I have to say that it seems to me to combine the best parts of Forth and Lisp. It's ridiculously elegant.

garmaine 8y ago
Do you have a link to whatever project you are working on? I'm interested in Joy but not aware of anyone working on or with it in recent decades.
- carapace 8y ago
  Sure! I developed an interpreter for Joy in Continuation-Passing Style in Python: http://joypy.osdn.io/ http://joypy.osdn.io/ I had just implemented type inference[1] when I got smashed over the brain by Prolog. So now the Python code is in limbo because the Prolog implementation of Joy is blindingly elegant[2]. In Prolog, the Joy interpreter is also the Joy type inferencer.[2] The compiler (from Joy expressions to new Prolog rules) is five lines long.[2] [1] http://joypy.osdn.io/notebooks/Types.html http://joypy.osdn.io/notebooks/Types.html [2] https://osdn.net/projects/joypy/scm/hg/Joypy/blobs/tip/thun/thun.pl https://osdn.net/projects/joypy/scm/hg/Joypy/blobs/tip/thun/...
  - garmaine 8y ago
    Thanks! Yes, there's a real connection between concatinative languages and logic languages. In some sense you can think of a concatinative logic language as Joy with the ability to push "unknown" values onto the stack, as well as a few constraint manipulatives. That's somewhat orthogonal, but it makes sense an interpreter for Joy would be quite compact in prolog. Thanks for the links, I'll review your work later!
    - carapace 8y ago
      Cheers! You might also like: http://conal.net/papers/compiling-to-categories/ http://conal.net/papers/compiling-to-categories/ He transforms Haskell to a point-free form that's suspiciously like Joy... ;-)