User talk:GordonCharlton

Quackery

I'm a huge concatenative language nerd and Quackery is the most unique take on one I've seen in a long time. Ancillary stacks are a real neat abstraction. They pretty much stand in for locals, globals, dynamic scoping, and well, ancillary stacks. And probably even structs with just a few more words. The metaflow operators are like nothing I've ever seen before. The most unique thing about the language in my view is how nests do themselves by default, and a lot of words look at them from ahead instead of behind. I guess that's where the Lisp influence seeps through.

I'm impressed that you released an entire book alongside the language. I read it from cover to cover and thoroughly enjoyed it. I hope you don't mind if I take a stab at some of the tasks here on Rosetta Code in Quackery from time to time! :) Feel free to point out anything silly I do on my talk page.

As an aside, I got it running on Windows no problem. --Chunes (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow! That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me in a long while. If we ever meet IRL I may have to hug you. Yes, please do some tasks in Quackery. I'd love to see how someone else codes in the language.

Perhaps you could help me out - at the moment I'm replying to you by editing the page and typing the "Gordon Charlton ... ... date and time" at the end by hand. I guess there must be a better way?

PS. Thank you for creating a "tasks not implemented" for Quackery. I couldn't figure out how to do that. :-)

--GordonCharlton (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

When you edit a talk page, there should be some buttons at the upper left of the form where you type text. One of these is a button to insert your signature. You can also type --~~~~ but I can never remember it. --Chunes (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Found it. Cheers. :-) --GordonCharlton (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed your contributions to the Quackery corpus. :-) Nothing silly there! I like your poke and find approach to the pangrams task. That's something I really wouldn't of thought of but now I can see a similar approach applying to other things. --GordonCharlton (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm used to having Factor's set operations at my fingertips, so I had to get slightly more creative. :) On my latest submission (ISBN13 Check Digit), I experimented with a nest indentation style that is easier for me to understand. If you prefer there to be a specific style to Quackery, I can continue writing it more like you do, though.

Speaking of style, the way you write code is how I always would have preferred to write Factor, with the 3 aligned columns for code, names, and stack comments. But it wasn't the 'official' way to write Factor, so I never did that. I'm happy there is someone else out there who prefers this way.

Which reminds me, I have a question for you about stack comments. Words like witheach have a stack comment like ( a --> b ) or ( [ --> [ ). This makes sense strictly from the stack standpoint, but as a word contract I find it doesn't give me the picture I'm looking for to understand the word, since there is no indication of the nest it expects following the word. Is this something that could be resolved with a stack comment notation, like ( [ . [] --> [ )? Just spitballing here; the . indicates the word position, while the [] indicates a nest following the word. No wrong answer either way; I understand wanting to keep it simple. --Chunes (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)