Talk:Concatenative programming language: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:38, 25 August 2004

Latest revision as of 22:25, 30 January 2024

(15 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

{{WikiProject Computer science|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Computing|importance=mid}}

}}

This doesn't appear to be a term with significant usage outside of wikipedia, and also is very poorly defined here. Should this be deleted?

*[[Manfred von Thun]] keeps referring as "concatenative" to those languages that he includes in a class with [[Joy (programming language)|Joy]]. There is also a discussion group dealing with Joy and related topics. To browse previous messages, or to join the group, see [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/concatenative yahoo group: concatenative] These messages can be read without joining the group. There have been 1116 contributions in the first two years, 1-MAY-2000 to 1-MAY-2002. Perhaps there is a better (i.e., more ''standard'' way of referring to this class of languages? If you do know of one, it would probably make sense to change the name. — [[User:Danakil|danakil]] 01:12, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

* Charles Moore didn't invent the name, but sure invented the concept. However, the only name he ever gave it was Forth. Although a long term Forth user (over 30 years), I have no problem with finally having a name for a class of programming languages that was previously unnamed. [[User:Mdfischer|Mdfischer]] 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

== Contradicting information ==

The article says "or stack-based", but the category lists languages that aren's stack-based. I see some contradiction in this. --[[User:Stesch|Stesch]] 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

== Replacement ==

The article here has many issues. The issues were discussed on the concatenative mailing list. The full discussion is available here:

http://www.nabble.com/the-concatenative-wikipedia-article-td21227513.html

The result of this discussion is a new article that better addresses the topic. It can be viewed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Nowak/Sandbox/Concatenative

Assuming there are no issues, I'll go ahead and switch the article to the new version.

==Incomprehensible==

I'm university level CompSci engineer, but don't understand this article because the terms are not back-referenced. For example "terms" is meaningless without either back-referencing the term "term" to one other programming or mathematical paradigm, such as logic programming or imperative. The article just seems to mumble its mind without any listeners. I think it is not understandable to anyone except anyone that already knows all about the topic. The terms must be better founded into a context. [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80">^m<u>bork³</u></span>]]!) 15:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

: I've attempted to clarify things somewhat by explaining concatenative languages as the subset of point-free languages in which concatenation of expressions (which should be clearer than "terms") denotes function composition. If you do not think this improves things sufficiently, please reinstate the technical notice. [[User:John Nowak|John Nowak]] ([[User talk:John Nowak|talk]]) 03:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

== Function-level programming ==

How does concatenative programming compare to Backus-style [[function-level programming]]? They both emphasize the [[point-free style]], so what is the difference? —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 15:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

: AFAIK:

: [[tacit programming|point-free]] [[complement (set theory)#relative_complement|\]] [[concatenative programming language|concatenative]]=[[tacit programming|point-free]] with [[order of operations]] (eg [[Haskell (programming language)|Haskell]])

: [[concatenative programming language|concatenative]] [[complement (set theory)#relative_complement|\]] [[tacit programming|point-free]]=[[concatenative programming language|concatenative]] with [[anonymous function|λ-abstraction]] (eg [[concatenative programming language#cite note-9|Enchilada]],[[concatenative programming language#cite note-8|XY]])

: [[function-level programming|function-level]] [[complement (set theory)#relative_complement|\]] [[concatenative programming language|concatenative]]=[[function-level programming|function-level]] with [[order of operations]](eg [[FP (programming_language)|FP]],[[FL (programming_language)|FL]],[[FPr (programming_language)|FPr]],[[j (programming_language)|J]])

: [[concatenative programming language|concatenative]] [[complement (set theory)#relative_complement|\]] [[function-level programming|function-level]]=[[concatenative programming language|concatenative]], not [[tacit programming|point-free]] (eg [[concatenative programming language#cite note-9|Enchilada]],[[concatenative programming language#cite note-8|XY]]) or without [[higher-order function|higher-order functions]] (eg [[forth (programming language)|Forth]])

: [[concatenative programming language|concatenative]] [[intersection (set theory)|∩]] [[tacit programming|point-free]]=[[stack-oriented programming language|stack-oriented]] (eg [[forth (programming language)|Forth]],[[cat (programming language)|Cat]],[[joy (programming language)|Joy]])

: [[tacit programming|point-free]] [[intersection (set theory)|∩]] [[functional programming|functional]]=[[function-level programming|function-level]]

: [[concatenative programming language|concatenative]] [[intersection (set theory)|∩]] [[function-level programming|function-level]]=[[stack-oriented programming language|stack-oriented]] with [[higher-order function|higher-order functions]] (eg [[cat (programming language)|Cat]],[[joy (programming language)|Joy]])

: If this is right, the article (after expliciting the relationship) should be cleaned to not hold examples of [[stack-oriented programming language|stack-oriented]] languages. -[[Special:Contributions/189.26.152.54|189.26.152.54]] ([[User talk:189.26.152.54|talk]]) 14:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)