Joy, Lambdas, Combinators, Procedures
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:23:20 -0800
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> > I *think* I do, but what I know about the number three
> > would indicate that
> > Joy supports it fully. I'm trying to figure out why you
> > say it doesn't.
> Well.. The meaning Joy associates with "3" is slightly different
> from the ordinary English meaning of "three".
I think what you're trying to say is that Joy implicitly *does* something
with the 3, instead of simply letting it exist in nothingness until some
command is applied to it. Specifically, Joy 'pushes' the 3 on the stack.
But this is really no different from any other language -- if you can _use_
the three, you have to put it somewhere, and that means that something else
has to be overwritten or pushed aside.
> Anyway, I was
> probably being a bit silly in suggesting that this is a serious
> problem with Joy.
> That the meaning differs may make it a
> little harder
> to read and write programs, but this is probably a matter of
Good grief, no! Didn't you read the manuals? Joy has problems, but it's
_certainly_ not this one! Programs in Joy are generally *dramatically*
easier to understand (that is, realize what proofs are implied) and even to
prove things about.
> 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 am much more familiar with applicative style,
> and will probably continue to use it in making my toy system.
That's a good point. Using the system you're comfortable is the right thing
to do when you're building a system.
I do hope you'll take the time to read the docs for Joy; they're amazingly
clear and fun to read.
> - "iepos" (Brent Kerby)