Related. Others?
Why concatenative programming matters (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32124621 - July 2022 (55 comments)
Why Concatenative Programming Matters (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25244260 - Nov 2020 (18 comments)
Why Concatenative Programming Matters (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19665888 - April 2019 (33 comments)
Why Concatenative Programming Matters (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5542695 - April 2013 (36 comments)
Why Concatenative Programming Matters - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3582261 - Feb 2012 (40 comments)
Do most people tend to conclude that concatenative languages are absolutely an intellectual curiosity for any nerd who knows RPN and thought "what if we kept going?", but kind of fail in larger-scale production contexts?
(Yes, I'm aware of PostScript... Seems to be one of the sole exceptions here... And, uh, PDF... of course...)
All programming is just function composition.
This is an idea that I got from studying category theory.
Concatenative programming is just a first step in that direction.
I leave the details an an exercise for the reader.
Long, long ago I wrote a Forth of OS/2 out of spite. I've had a long standing interest in the language. It's been my opinion for a while that Forth is a less powerful language than LISP, even though they initially appear to just be the opposites of each other in terms of argument handling.
The thing that makes Forth and other similar languages write-only is that you can easily lose track of the variables when you are forced to toss them all on a stack. When you add the ability to use local variables, you get some of that power back, but then you've added a huge impedance mismatch with the rest of the system.
As much as I hate all the () in Lisp, it's the source of much of its power.