On Jun 17, 3:27 pm, SonOfLilit <sonofli... / gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, you're meddling in some pretty interesting things here. I don't
> think Ruby is that fit for them, however.
>
> Forth is a language without arguments. You just have a stack shared by
> all. It's elegant as hell and I love it, and it's first on my list of
> things to meddle with seriously.
>
> Forth code looks like this:
>
> : fib-iter ( n -- f ) ( things in braces are comments )
>   0 1 rot 0 ?do over + swap loop drop ;
>
> Here's an explanation:http://en.literateprograms.org/Fibonacci_numbers_(Forth)#chunk%20def:...

Does my FORTH love show thru? ;D

Yes, I very much love that language, and have secret plans to
rendezvous with her again one day.

> Ask Ed Borasky. He's very enthusiastic about it.
>
> Your later ideas sound to me a bit like Haskell monads, of which I've
> read a very good explanation recently that I've forgot the link for
> (there's a whole industry of trying to explain what monads are).

When it comes to monads, I got as far as Leibnitz and from what I've
read since I think that might be wise ;)

T.