2 ms·
I use minimal in the sense of the smallest number of primitive proper combinators [1]. Thanks for pointing out that Joy is similarly minimal. Do you know of an
by tromp 5y ago
I use minimal in the sense of the smallest number of primitive proper combinators [1]. Thanks for pointing out that Joy is similarly minimal.
Do you know of any concatenative language without quoting?
I find combinary languages simpler than concatenative ones, since the former uses only application as a composition mechanism, whereas the latter uses both concatenation and grouping with [].
[1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/839926/is-there-a-proof-of-nonexistence-of-a-proper-universal-combinator https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/839926/is-there-a-p...
- lupire 5y agoHonestly I don't really understand the deeper meaning of quoting/grouping, so I might be quite wrong about its use. How is concatenative grouping/quoting different from combinatory parentheses (or your binary equivalent). In pure lambda calculus you need parentheses to disambiguate, because everything is a function and there are no natural non-functional values. In a concatenative language you need something to solve that problem, maybe quoting does that? I'm over my head when I think about precisely how "small" these languages are, when trying to be explicit about how much is hidden in the virtual machine of evaluating a program (string of symbols).