# rant

## stevan apter — 2006-06-29 21:42:26

    a relatively mild-mannered rant ..

    as far as i'm concerned, there are exactly two concatenative

    languages:  joy and factor.

    1. those who are interested in the theory of such languages

    should read manfred's papers, learn joy, and write code

    to promote the state of our knowledge in this area.  (Brent

    Kirby's _theory of concatenative combinators_ is a fine

    example of this.)

    2. those who are interested in actually using a concatenative

    language, or in the development side of things, should

    turn to factor, a truly brilliant piece of work by slava

    pestov.  in my opinion, factor has a chance to become an

    established, widely-used language, but not if everyone

    interested in concatenative languages goes off to write

    their own.  first prove to yourself that you can't do

    what you want in factor.  chances are, slava's been there

    and done that.

    ok, now back to F ..

## Christopher Diggins — 2006-06-29 21:47:54

    Do you have any rationale for your declaration? Do you have a specific

    definition of a "concatenative language" and an illustration of how other

    languages (e.g. Cat) violate this definition?

     On 6/29/06, stevan apter <sa@...> wrote:

    >

    >    a relatively mild-mannered rant ..

    >

    > as far as i'm concerned, there are exactly two concatenative

    > languages: joy and factor.

    >

    > 1. those who are interested in the theory of such languages

    > should read manfred's papers, learn joy, and write code

    > to promote the state of our knowledge in this area. (Brent

    > Kirby's _theory of concatenative combinators_ is a fine

    > example of this.)

    >

    > 2. those who are interested in actually using a concatenative

    > language, or in the development side of things, should

    > turn to factor, a truly brilliant piece of work by slava

    > pestov. in my opinion, factor has a chance to become an

    > established, widely-used language, but not if everyone

    > interested in concatenative languages goes off to write

    > their own. first prove to yourself that you can't do

    > what you want in factor. chances are, slava's been there

    > and done that.

    >

    > ok, now back to F ..

    >

    >

    >

    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

## stevan apter — 2006-06-29 22:44:18

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: "Christopher Diggins" <cdiggins@...>

    To: <concatenative@yahoogroups.com>

    Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:47 PM

    Subject: Re: [stack] rant

    > Do you have any rationale for your declaration?

    of course not -- it was a rant.

    >                                                  Do you have a specific

    > definition of a "concatenative language" and an illustration of how other

    > languages (e.g. Cat) violate this definition?

    my intention was to express an opinion -- a contentious

    one, i'll admit.  namely, anyone who wants to do real

    work in (or on) a concatenative language should, in the

    absence of a demonstation that the language is inadequate,

    use either joy or factor.  theoretical (use joy); practical

    (use factor.)

    take that as a vote of confidence in both of these languages.

    >

    > On 6/29/06, stevan apter <sa@...> wrote:

    > >

    > >    a relatively mild-mannered rant ..

    > >

    > > as far as i'm concerned, there are exactly two concatenative

    > > languages: joy and factor.

    > >

    > > 1. those who are interested in the theory of such languages

    > > should read manfred's papers, learn joy, and write code

    > > to promote the state of our knowledge in this area. (Brent

    > > Kirby's _theory of concatenative combinators_ is a fine

    > > example of this.)

    > >

    > > 2. those who are interested in actually using a concatenative

    > > language, or in the development side of things, should

    > > turn to factor, a truly brilliant piece of work by slava

    > > pestov. in my opinion, factor has a chance to become an

    > > established, widely-used language, but not if everyone

    > > interested in concatenative languages goes off to write

    > > their own. first prove to yourself that you can't do

    > > what you want in factor. chances are, slava's been there

    > > and done that.

    > >

    > > ok, now back to F ..

    > >

    > >

    > >

    >

    >

    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    > Yahoo! Groups Links

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

## William Tanksley, Jr — 2006-06-30 14:13:59

    stevan apter <sa@...> wrote:

     > a relatively mild-mannered rant ..

     Amusing, too.

     > as far as i'm concerned, there are exactly two concatenative

    > languages:  joy and factor.

     Chuck Moore is spinning... well, he's not dead. But if he were he'd be

    spinning in his grave.

     > 1. those who are interested in the theory of such languages

    > should read manfred's papers, learn joy, and write code

    > to promote the state of our knowledge in this area.  (Brent

    > Kirby's _theory of concatenative combinators_ is a fine

    > example of this.)

     Whether or not you're interested in the theory you should at least

    look through Manfred's papers. They're a good read, and seriously

    groundbreaking. I don't think Joy itself is an interesting language --

    sorry, Manfred. Joy is merely the proof-of-concept for a few of

    Manfred's theories. Unfortunately, however, it was developed without

    knowledge of prior work on similar languages.

     > 2. those who are interested in actually using a concatenative

    > language, or in the development side of things, should

    > turn to factor, a truly brilliant piece of work by slava

    > pestov.  in my opinion, factor has a chance to become an

    > established, widely-used language, but not if everyone

    > interested in concatenative languages goes off to write

    > their own.  first prove to yourself that you can't do

    > what you want in factor.  chances are, slava's been there

    > and done that.

     Factor is brilliant. It's much more important than any other johnny-come-lately

     > ok, now back to F ..

     Which, like many other johnny-come-lately languages, closely examines

    a minor detail of language design much better than the other

    languages. Just as (for example) strongForth examines static

    typechecking of a concatenative language, and Forth applies

    concatenative principles to practical concerns of a constrained

    environment.

    -Billy