# Re: [stack] Overview of Joy (was Concatenative Languages: a New M ailing List)

## Christian Tismer — 2000-05-08 20:14:44

    wtanksley@... wrote:

    ...

     > Of course, I also have to note that your syntax is impossible; the way you

    > have it written, the language would have to execute 'square' before it's

    > defined.  If you want to have a word which defines other words, its use

    > would look something like:

    >

    >   [dup *] "square" define

     /square { dup mult } def

    or even

    /square { dup mult } bind def

    wouldn't that be nearly exactly the same in Postscript lingo?

    Yes I cannot figure out only minor differences.

    What's new in Joy, just that it is simpler (and maybe clearer?)

    ciao - chris

    --

    Christian Tismer             :^)   <mailto:tismer@...>

    Applied Biometrics GmbH      :     Have a break! Take a ride on Python's

    Kaunstr. 26                  :    *Starship* http://starship.python.net

    14163 Berlin                 :     PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net

    PGP Fingerprint       E182 71C7 1A9D 66E9 9D15  D3CC D4D7 93E2 1FAE F6DF

         where do you want to jump today?   http://www.stackless.com

## wtanksley@bigfoot.com — 2000-05-08 20:23:40

    From: Christian Tismer [mailto:tismer@...]

     >wtanksley@... wrote:

    >...

    >> Of course, I also have to note that your syntax is

    >> impossible; the way you

    >> have it written, the language would have to execute 'square'

    >> before it's

    >> defined.  If you want to have a word which defines other

    >> words, its use would look something like:

    >>   [dup *] "square" define

    >/square { dup mult } def

    >or even

    >/square { dup mult } bind def

    >wouldn't that be nearly exactly the same in Postscript lingo?

     Nearly, except the syntax I used depended on strings, while yours depends on

    "symbols".  No big deal.

     >What's new in Joy, just that it is simpler (and maybe clearer?)

     Nothing's new in Joy -- that's the point of this list.  (Almost) everything

    its documentation discusses applies very well to Forth, HP-RPL, and

    Postscript.  Joy itself isn't a very good programming language, because it

    lacks so many error-detecting and efficiency features.  But that's fine --

    it's a great language to illustrate aspects of theory which I've never

    before seen.

    Now I understand some of the reasons why Forth is so much fun to program in.

     >ciao - chris

     -Billy