Sick article. I'd say I'm a reluctant advocate of this style, and the author touched upon the two points that I always present to my colleagues:<p>1. The focus on verbs can make things clearer.<p>2. Under ideal circumstances, it's no more complex than Unix pipes.<p>But I'm still not 100% convinced it makes for more readable code. Sometimes I still need variable names for documentation purposes. This isn't so bad in Haskell, since the type signature can make the intention known, but something like J...
I really made an effort to get into <a href="https://factorcode.org/" rel="nofollow">https://factorcode.org/</a> about a decade ago. It's an incredibly impressive project, but I found that the cognitive overhead of manipulating the stack stubbornly failed to go away over time. I say this as someone who is reasonably comfortable writing moderately complex Haskell code, so it's not that I'm unable to adjust to unusual programming paradigms. I think naming local variables just turns out to be an <i>incredibly</i> good idea.<p>That said, I do appreciate the conceptual simplicity and ease of implementation of concatenative languages. They certainly have their place.<p>In case there are any Factor evangelists out there, let me add in fairness that the language makes it easy to use named variables if you want to.
Someone a few days ago shared a stack-based VM he’s building in C++. Quite interesting. He also has a C version on his GitHub.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25243084" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25243084</a>