> Those languages have nothing in common other than being pleasant to work with.. That's where the author had an insight, that they (could) have everything in

> Those languages have nothing in common other than being pleasant to work with.. That's where the author had an insight, that they (could) have everything in common - except for the syntax on a surface level. Underneath, languages are just different ways to produce and operate on the same "stuff", data and algorithms - values, function, list, dictionary, stack. So, to me it makes sense that there can be a Lisp-y flavor of Python, Pythonic flavor of Lisp, Forthy Python, and so on. It's a matter of parsing/compiling them into a common format, targeting the same interpreter or virtual machine. That said, this Forth-Lisp-Python Continuum verges on mad genius, to have all these different syntaxes in one language. It was interesting to see this project, since I've been working on a hobby language, whose syntax is infix-oriented like C (but everything is an expression). It gets parsed into a prefix-oriented Lisp-like syntax tree. The interpreter is a "machine" based on Lisp's eval, with lambda, macro, tail-call optimization, etc. So, basically, the language is just syntactic sugar that compiles down to whatever the machine expects. I plan to implement another (much simpler) parser for a Lisp-flavor of the same language. In the case of FLPContinuum, I see that the interpreter is a stack-based loop (https://github.com/asrp/flpc/blob/f47de76fcab6d2d2b1840e53769ec8659a5a185c/flpc_all.c#L777 https://github.com/asrp/flpc/blob/f47de76fcab6d2d2b1840e5376...). The actual implementation of the "machine" almost doesn't matter for the language(s) though, as long as the interface stays the same.