Having created a small concatenative language myself[1], no, the pure concatenative style with no variables and stack combinators is just too much for a normall

Having created a small concatenative language myself[1], no, the pure concatenative style with no variables and stack combinators is just too much for a normally-wired brain. BUT! I tried to cheat a little bit to make things more readable. Take this example from the min front page, which showcases its concatenative style: . ls-r (mtime now 3600 - >) filter Can you guess what it does? You might, but what about this: . ls-r :files ((mtime > (now - 3600)) ><) =changed-in-last-hour @files #changed-in-last-hour filter Now ok, I went insane with sigils and weird operators but: - creating variables helps - using infix notation via the infix-dequote (><) operator makes expressions much more readable Why would I use this rather than a traditional language? It helps reasoning in terms of point-free function composition and in some case it is faster to work with, i.e. processing rules, pipelines, task sequences etc. [1] https://min-lang.org https://min-lang.org