

The Joy of Concatenative Languages (Part 2) - gnosis
http://www.codecommit.com/blog/cat/the-joy-of-concatenative-languages-part-2

======
srean
Appreciated the pun in the title. Joy is a purely functional language and the
archetype of the concatenated style. The original Joy page is down but here is
a mirror <http://www.kevinalbrecht.com/code/joy-mirror/index.html> If I
remember correctly there used to be link in the original called "Joy of
Programming". If you love this kind of stuff checkout
<http://archive.vector.org.uk/art10000360> very entertaining. Amusingly enough
Joy's stack based semantics was not something that was explicitly strived for,
but emerged as a consequence of its quest for purity and syntactic simplicity.

The post made me check up on CVML. I am delighted that the development on the
virtual machine for Cat language has picked up a lot of steam
<http://code.google.com/p/cvml/> though with mildly altered name. I was
keeping an eye on that last year but I guess the author was occupied with the
development on another language he was collaborating on called Heron. Cat I
think is the only statically typed language of this family.

A good resource to check up on such languages is
<http://concatenative.org/wiki/view/Front%20Page> Postscript probably should
have been there as well.

------
sambeau
I tried to follow the really interesting link provided to the Cat Programming
Language article on Wikipedia. I got this:

    
    
      01:14, 13 April 2011 Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) deleted "Cat (programming language)" ‎ 
    

Why would anyone delete a useful reference to a serious academic article like
this?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_(programming_language)#Sema...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_\(programming_language\)#Semantics)

~~~
gnosis
You can see the discussion that led to its deletion here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deleti...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2011_February_11#Cat_.28programming_language.29)

It looks like the deletionists decided Cat wasn't notable enough to deserve a
Wikipedia article about it.

You can read about Wikipedia's notability criteria here:

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Not...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability)

