Just wanted to get a bit of traffic out there to welcome the new members of the list -- and my apologies for taking so long to notice that there were pending members.

This is a slow period for the list, so feel free to start a new topic talking about your own personal project.

-Wm

Hi. I came across this group while poking around the web looking for
discussions of language-design issues. I work on www.needlebase.com, a
database system of sorts that includes a path-oriented query language called
Thread.

Thread isn't strictly concatenative in the pure sense, as its built-in
operations do take parameters, but it uses a working set similar to the way
concatenative languages use the stack, and many functions (counting, math,
etc.) operate in a postfix, parameterless way. So, for example, getting the
difference between launch mass and empty mass for a bunch of satellites
would look like this:

Satellite|(..Launch Mass,Empty Mass._-)

If you're interested, there's an introduction to this language at
https://pub.needlebase.com/docs/ThreadManual.html.

glenn

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

haha this came to me as '[stack] Digest Number 1337'; Wm's leet post!

Wm, what have you been working on out of curiosity?

I've wondered for awhile now why there's not much cross-pollination of Factor topics on the concatenative list side of things? That's where a lot of the practical side of things has been happening with regards to concatenative languages... Is there something that the more academically inclined languages like Joy provide that appeal to this list more?

Whatever happened to cat which seems (with the addition of things like Factor's dataflow combinators) would be a good platform to study the statically typed side of things? With F# 2.0 officially supported in Visual Studio (Or the VS Integrated Shell+Fsharp distribution for a free solution), it'd be neat to see the implementation move over to that language with functional roots based on Ocaml.

Maybe someone can answer my rambling questions to get the list going again.

-Adam

--- In concatenative <at> yahoogroups.com, "wtanksle" <wtanksleyjr <at> ...> wrote:
>
> Just wanted to get a bit of traffic out there to welcome the new members of the list -- and my apologies for taking so long to notice that there were pending members.
>
> This is a slow period for the list, so feel free to start a new topic talking about your own personal project.
>
> -Wm
>

Also, not sure if this list is aware that Factor now has row variables for inline row-polymorphic combinators:

http://docs.factorcode.org/content/article-effects-variables.html

Now that stack effect checking is mandatory, run-time checked combinators have been added which declare a run-time effect declaration:

http://docs.factorcode.org/content/article-call.html

-Adam

--- In concatenative <at> yahoogroups.com, "hiatoms" <hiatoms <at> ...> wrote:
>
>
>
> haha this came to me as '[stack] Digest Number 1337'; Wm's leet post!
>
> Wm, what have you been working on out of curiosity?
>
> I've wondered for awhile now why there's not much cross-pollination of Factor topics on the concatenative list side of things? That's where a lot of the practical side of things has been happening with regards to concatenative languages... Is there something that the more academically inclined languages like Joy provide that appeal to this list more?
>
> Whatever happened to cat which seems (with the addition of things like Factor's dataflow combinators) would be a good platform to study the statically typed side of things? With F# 2.0 officially supported in Visual Studio (Or the VS Integrated Shell+Fsharp distribution for a free solution), it'd be neat to see the implementation move over to that language with functional roots based on Ocaml.
>
> Maybe someone can answer my rambling questions to get the list going again.
>
> -Adam
>
> --- In concatenative <at> yahoogroups.com, "wtanksle" <wtanksleyjr <at> > wrote:
> >
> > Just wanted to get a bit of traffic out there to welcome the new members of the list -- and my apologies for taking so long to notice that there were pending members.
> >
> > This is a slow period for the list, so feel free to start a new topic talking about your own personal project.
> >
> > -Wm
> >
>

hiatoms <hiatoms <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Wm, what have you been working on out of curiosity?

I sped up my zeroone/tworing brute-force-search considerably for large
bitcounts; the overhead has become reasonable enough that I'm now
confident that my pseudo-backtracking actually adds something to the
search.

I'm also playing around with some alternative meanings for the zero
and one combinators, based on very different underpinnings. The
current underpinning is combinatorial logic; there are other logics
that may possibly be entertaining -- for example, there's a logic
based on bit copying. We'll see, I don't have any solid results yet.

> I've wondered for awhile now why there's not much cross-pollination of Factor topics on the concatenative list side of things?  That's where a lot of the practical side of things has been happening with regards to concatenative languages... Is there something that the more academically inclined languages like Joy provide that appeal to this list more?

Factor has its own mailing list, so people seem to want to discuss it
there, where Factor people are listening anyhow. Meanwhile, this is
the only place to discuss Joy, even though it's not conceptually on
topic. You're right that Factor has brought some very interesting
theoretical ideas into reality, and they deserve to be discussed in
theory as well .

I'm going to say that this is the list on which we discuss all
plausibly concatenative languages which are not discussed on any list.
(That was very carefully phrased.)

> Whatever happened to cat which seems (with the addition of things like Factor's dataflow combinators) would be a good platform to study the statically typed side of things?  With F# 2.0 officially supported in Visual Studio (Or the VS Integrated Shell+Fsharp distribution for a free solution), it'd be neat to see the implementation move over to that language with functional roots based on Ocaml.

I'm not sure. I haven't heard anything.

> -Adam

-Wm