6 ms·

I'm not sure that the presense of a stack is required for a concatenative language, but your point is well taken. Pesto5 is not enterprise ready.

• evincarofautumn 14y ago
  Right, that’s what I said. Just because it’s efficient to implement one language that way doesn’t mean it’s efficient to do that for every language in the same family. :) With non-variadic arithmetic functions: (defn add [x] (cons (+ (first x) (second x)) (rest (rest x)))) Your “postfix” function can remain a simple “reduce”, but can be totally agnostic of function arity. That frees you up to write the basic combinators: (defn dup [x] (cons (first x) x)) (defn zap [x] (rest x)) (defn swap [x] (cons (second x) (cons (first x) (rest (rest x))))) (defn ap [x] (apply (first x) (rest x))) ...
• sparist 14y ago
  A data stack is indeed not required -- see Om (experimental): http://concatenative.org/wiki/view/Om http://concatenative.org/wiki/view/Om It uses prefix notation: instead of a data stack, each function takes the remainder of the program for rewriting.
• dkersten 14y ago
  Enchilada is a concatenative language which is not stack based but instead works through term rewriting.
• snprbob86 14y ago
  I whether or not there is a stack is similar to the complementary nature of foldL vs parallel fold (ie Clojure's core/reduce vs reducers). Left-to-right concatenative languages make use of a stack and are appropriate for side effects and stream processing. However, there are pure concatenative languages that operate in parallel via term rewriting, which has a computational model akin to that of a DNA computer.