[FoRK] "Super Tuesday" only "semi-great," Texans claim
<jbone at place.org> on
Wed Feb 13 22:17:01 PST 2008
On Feb 13, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 01:16:17PM -0600, Jeff Bone wrote:
>> Hmm, I dunno if I'll ever be able to consider a stack language truly
> Stack machines and threaded languages have a lot things going for
> Message-passing OOP is also easy there.
Oh, no doubt.
My first "serious" language (I won't consider TurboPascal dabbling
"serious" ;-) was a graphical Forth called GraForth that had
primitives for 3-D graphics --- back on the old, original PC. Could
do wireframes at really respectable frame rates for the time. Native
3D cartesian coordinates, transforms, etc. I built an animated 3D
star mapper in it, my first serious program really.
PostScript / NeWS --- all very respectable.
By "functional" in my comment above I meant in the specific sense of
functional languages. I'm not sure I buy the handwaving of e.g. Joy's
advocates, who will say (nb, cribbing some Joy thing I read today on
progeddit) that e.g. 3 + is actually two functions from stacks to
I just don't think you can argue away the statefulness of stack
languages; i.e., I don't think you can legitimately call any stack
language a "functional" programming language in the same sense as e.g.
Haskell (or Clean, etc... --- i.e. that class of languages
specifically developed in response to Backus' Turing Award lecture.)
I.e., not declarative / applicative / doesn't have the same
referential properties, etc.
More information about the FoRK