What about REBOL (www.rebol.com)

[William Tanksley]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 19:19:55 -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
>[William Tanksley]
>> Heck, not even discovering Joy
>> (http://www.latrobe.edu.au/www/philosophy/phimvt/j00syn.html),
>> surely the best language ever designed, has not sullied my
>> happiness with Python.

>[Michel Pelletier]
>> Weird, it looks like the bastard child of a paren-less LISP
>> and an inverted FORTH.

>Yes, Billy *does* leave that impression on people <wink>. 

I'm keeping this one.  Thanks, Tim -- made my day.  :-)

Although I'm a bit confused by the specific charicterization chosen --
Joy's more like a cross between Forth and an inverted, paren-less Lisp.

>As you say, though, Joy looks pretty:
>> Cool.
>for-austerely-elegant-defns-of-coolness-ly y'rs  - tim

I actually wouldn't care to write anything significant in the language
itself -- but reading the docs has changed my understanding of programming
languages.

I'm thinking of writing a Forth based on Joy, and then a Joy based on that
Forth derivative.  (How will you tell the difference?  Simple: the former
won't have GC or types, but will instead offer direct access to its VM.)
My thought is that while Joy reveals much of the math which is behind
Forth's usefulness, Forth has gained a lot of experience in being a real
programming language, experience which Joy lacks.

I also have contemplated making the second language Rebol-like (via
careful choice of quoting semantics, types, parsing strategies, and
libraries).

Hmm, I think I'll make it whitespace sensitive.  Yummy -- RPN _and_
whitespace.

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley, in hoc signo hack