4 ms·

Every other programming language I've studied starts off showing me how to do things. As I go through this manual, I think I am seeing a language define itself

Every other programming language I've studied starts off showing me how to do things. As I go through this manual, I think I am seeing a language define itself from the ground up. It's kind of like chemistry; atoms to (small) molecules to functional groups to functional group transformations and onwards to bewildering complexity. I'm getting flashforwards to what this could ultimately achieve and why LISP has stayed relevant for so long.

macintux 7y ago
I haven’t read it yet, but IIRC from previous discussions Thinking Forth is similar in spirit. http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/ http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/ Certainly the language itself has that philosophy: a small number of constructs composed into more complex concepts.
- a1369209993 7y ago
  > a small number of constructs composed into more complex concepts. Emphasis on small; my favorite Forth quote[0] is: : ( 41 word drop ; immediate ( That was the definition for the comment word. ) ( Now we can add comments to what we are doing! ) Of course, per the original topic: > (You [can also do that] in Lisp but they don't teach you those parts at school. They teach the pure functional parts, where you can't do things that you can in C++. Bastards.) [1] 0: philburk_pforth/fth/system.fth:12 1: http://yosefk.com/blog/my-history-with-forth-stack-machines.html http://yosefk.com/blog/my-history-with-forth-stack-machines....
  - OldGuyInTheClub 7y ago
    If I understand [1], the author is impressed by Forth but can't commit to the mindflip required to use it. I suspect that I'll wind up in a similar place with Lisp and/or Forth but that it will be worth knowing how to solve problems by approaching them differently.
    - a1369209993 7y ago
      My experience is that Forth and Lisp both have a lot of useful ideas that I'd really like to take advantage of, but lack basic amenities like temporaries without LIFO semantics (Forth), control over memory layout (Lisp), static types or syntax (both).
capableweb 7y ago
If you liked that, you might also like one of Paul Grahams pet projects, the Bel Language: http://www.paulgraham.com/bel.html http://www.paulgraham.com/bel.html It's a specification for a new dialect of lisp, written in lisp.
- grzm 7y ago
  s/Bell/Bel/
  - capableweb 7y ago
    Thanks, now corrected.
- OldGuyInTheClub 7y ago
  Thanks for the references. I've heard very good things about Forth but didn't know about Bell. I don't have any pressing problems for these (or any other language) to solve but the conceptual differences are intriguing. I think that one has to decompose problems very differently with Lisp and Forth. It will not be as straightforward as learning a standard library and figuring out the calls. Do people use these languages for scientific and technical computing the way one might use Matlab or Mathematica?

macintux 7y ago

I haven’t read it yet, but IIRC from previous discussions Thinking Forth is similar in spirit. http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/ http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/ Certainly the language itself has that philosophy: a small number of constructs composed into more complex concepts.

a1369209993 7y ago
> a small number of constructs composed into more complex concepts. Emphasis on small; my favorite Forth quote[0] is: : ( 41 word drop ; immediate ( That was the definition for the comment word. ) ( Now we can add comments to what we are doing! ) Of course, per the original topic: > (You [can also do that] in Lisp but they don't teach you those parts at school. They teach the pure functional parts, where you can't do things that you can in C++. Bastards.) [1] 0: philburk_pforth/fth/system.fth:12 1: http://yosefk.com/blog/my-history-with-forth-stack-machines.html http://yosefk.com/blog/my-history-with-forth-stack-machines....
- OldGuyInTheClub 7y ago
  If I understand [1], the author is impressed by Forth but can't commit to the mindflip required to use it. I suspect that I'll wind up in a similar place with Lisp and/or Forth but that it will be worth knowing how to solve problems by approaching them differently.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    My experience is that Forth and Lisp both have a lot of useful ideas that I'd really like to take advantage of, but lack basic amenities like temporaries without LIFO semantics (Forth), control over memory layout (Lisp), static types or syntax (both).

capableweb 7y ago

If you liked that, you might also like one of Paul Grahams pet projects, the Bel Language: http://www.paulgraham.com/bel.html http://www.paulgraham.com/bel.html It's a specification for a new dialect of lisp, written in lisp.

grzm 7y ago
s/Bell/Bel/
- capableweb 7y ago
  Thanks, now corrected.
OldGuyInTheClub 7y ago
Thanks for the references. I've heard very good things about Forth but didn't know about Bell. I don't have any pressing problems for these (or any other language) to solve but the conceptual differences are intriguing. I think that one has to decompose problems very differently with Lisp and Forth. It will not be as straightforward as learning a standard library and figuring out the calls. Do people use these languages for scientific and technical computing the way one might use Matlab or Mathematica?