3 ms·
That Conal Elliot paper is being my current level, and I don’t see the relation to the comment about composability in Forth. Is there a simplified explanation s
by ssivark 6y ago
That Conal Elliot paper is being my current level, and I don’t see the relation to the comment about composability in Forth. Is there a simplified explanation somewhere? (Preferable less mathematical and more verbal, but I’ll take what I can get) Thanks.
- carapace 6y agoI don't know if it's written up anywhere like that, sorry. The very brief section on mathematical purity of Joy in the Wikipedia article describes it but in (IMO) an unhelpful way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_(programming_language)#Mathematical_purity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_(programming_language)#Mat... > In Joy, the meaning function is a homomorphism from the syntactic monoid onto the semantic monoid. That is, the syntactic relation of concatenation of symbols maps directly onto the semantic relation of composition of functions. It is a homomorphism rather than an isomorphism, because it is onto but not one-to-one; that is, no symbol has more than one meaning, but some sequences of symbols have the same meaning (e.g. "dup +" and "2 *"). > Joy is a concatenative programming language: "The concatenation of two programs denotes the composition of the functions denoted by the two programs".[2] [2] "Mathematical foundations of Joy" by Manfred von Thun https://web.archive.org/web/20111007025556/http://www.latrobe.edu.au/phimvt/joy/j02maf.html https://web.archive.org/web/20111007025556/http://www.latrob...