> From: Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:57:16 +0200
[..]
> SAJ told that Joy is functional. If I unterstood him correctly, he said
> functional languages eliminated state and Joy IN ADDITION TO THIS eliminated
> variables and environments. So there must be a im
> [...]
> SAJ> Joy differs from Haskell in that it has no variables. Instead, all
> SAJ> functions are postfix, taking a stack as their argument and returning
> SAJ> a stack as a result.
> No, this is just a good old Forth programming language. It's a pity
> that author of Joy even didn't mention
Hello S.,
Tuesday, September 25, 2001, 9:08:48 AM, you wrote:
SAJ> I just found out about a functional programming language called Joy (see
SAJ> http://www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/phimvt/joy.html).
SAJ> Joy differs from Haskell in that it has no variables. Instead, all
SAJ> functions are pos
I just found out about a functional programming language called Joy (see
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/phimvt/joy.html).
Joy differs from Haskell in that it has no variables. Instead, all
functions are postfix, taking a stack as their argument and returning a
stack as a result.
Joy advoc
