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