I strongly believe concatenative languages – particularly statically typed ones – are one paradigm of programming that have not been explored nearly enough. It's good to see more activity in this area :)<p>Here's another interesting concatenative language in development that I'm following: <a href="http://kittenlang.org/" rel="nofollow">http://kittenlang.org/</a>
That's cool! I actually tried something like this myself, but ended up with a less conventional syntax.<p>I'm not really familiar with Forth, but my impression from writing a little bit of postfix code was that some pattern matching would make e.g. writing a large conditional much easier.
> <i>I've been craving for a trivial, embedded scripting language that feels just right for a long, long time; something I can quickly drop into any project that needs scripting without too much ceremony.</i><p>How are you quickly and casually going to drop in a scripting language into any project, if it requires Common Lisp?<p>Maybe this means "into any CL project". But why would you need a scripting language in a CL project.
So, serious question: if the property of a concatenative language is the ability to pass outputs to inputs of a function without specifying parameters, could Iolang or Smalltalk also be described as concatenative? Ie:<p><pre><code> Transcript show: 'foo'; cr.
</code></pre>
In this case the output of "Transcript show:" is the Transcript object, which is used as the sender for cr.
actually I'd like to see a (~16 bit) Forth backend for LLVM... so I don't have to "think RPN" myself.<p>just load the binary into serial flash, point the interpreter at it, and of it goes.