Re: Joy, Lambdas, Combinators, Procedures

> > What I meant was that I'm not convinced that Joy programs are
> > easier to understand than similar programs written in a
> > purely functional language.
> 
> First of all, please realize that Joy is a purely functional language.  I
> think you mean "a more traditional purely functional language."

Oops... By "purely functional language", I meant "purely applicative
language".

> > We could talk about program size;
> > I suspect that most programs written in Joy could be written in
> > as a functional program of similar size, but I can't really
> > support this, because I don't know of any functional language
> > that is as good as Joy (there may well be one somewhere, and I believe
> > one could be constructed).
> 
> Joy is a functional language.

Again, by "functional language" i meant "purely applicative language".

> > > > Anyway, I find Joy to be quite an interesting system. But,
> > > > I don't know that its approach of using composition and quotation
> > > > is fundamentally superior to a purely applicative approach.
> 
> > > Read the manuals -- it's so clearly superior it's not even funny.
> 
> > I've read most of the synopsis pages, but I'm not convinced.
> 
> You need to actually see him work some proofs using Joy as a notation.  It's
> quite impressive.

maybe so... I believe proofs about a purely applicative system
may also be impressive. 

> There are two systems I know of which use combinators efficiently and
> thoroughly: Joy/Forth and J/APL.  In both cases, the RPN systems have more
> of a dependance on explicit combinators; the APL systems imply theirs (and J
> has some really funky implied combinators, with its "hook" and "fork"
> combinations).

Hmm... I've never heard of "J" or "APL"...

> > - "iepos" (Brent Kerby)
> 
> -Billy

anyway, I see no point in arguing further over which kind of system
is better (Joy-style or purely applicative); I haven't really
claimed that either kind is generally better... but purely applicative
seems worth trying well, at least.

I think that pretty much wraps it up (I don't think we really have
any points of disagreement)... maybe when I find or make a good
purely applicative system, we'll have two concrete systems
to judge between (Joy and the purely appliactive one); then it
will probably be obvious which is better.

- "iepos" (Brent Kerby)