5 ms·

Like the author said, that is optional. I'm writing a concatenative language with a C-similar syntax GitHub.com/civboot/fngi

• layer8 4y ago
  It’s not optional if you want partial application/implicit composition. You can certainly have multiple syntaxes within the same language, but you can’t get the benefits of concatenative languages without also getting the drawbacks.
  • vitiral 4y ago
    Interesting, I hadn't actually considered partial composition, since my language is very "at the metal" and partial composition isn't possible (or rather would have to have a macro and data-structure built around it). That's a good point for a "functional-style" language though.
    • adastra22 4y ago
      Partial compilation is pretty core to concatenative languages. I don’t know how you can call yours one without it.
      • vitiral 4y ago
        You mean partial _application_. The author called FORTH a concatenative language, and FORTH definitely doesn't have partial application. In fact, FORTH doesn't even have a type system. Perhaps this is a miscategorization? fngi does have a type system which modifies a stack. However, it will be lacking many high-level type system features, being similar (but smaller and lighter-weight) than golang. Not totally sure if it qualifies or not.