The whole Enchilada

You can argue if Enchilada brings something new to the other concatenative languages: Joy, Factor and Cat.

I think one of the big improvements over Joy is how programs/expressions are handled. This becomes particularly obvious when we look at Joy's map operator.

Note the regularity of Enchilada's semantics: there are no strange exceptions like in the Joy case. I believe Joy's quotations were always considered problematic (even by Manfred von Thun, the maker of Joy) and I think the map operator shows why.

Cat is very similar to Joy and is likely to suffer from the same confusion between quotations and programs. That could change in the future however, because its creator, Christopher Diggins, is still finalizing Cat's exact semantics.

Another improvement over Joy, Factor and Cat is that Enchilada is completely typeless. There is no special number, string or character type. In that respect, Enchilada is closer to Forth and (pure) Lisp then anything else. I'm aware that being typeless might not please the language purists out there, but I like my language to be simple (but not simpler). If there is need for compilation (or theorem proving) you can build such compiler in Enchilada without much effort.

Factor is a very interesting language, especially because it is reaching some critical mass. However, Factor is not purely functional like Enchilada. I believe that referential transparency was never one of Factor's major design goals, but I could be wrong here.

I'm eager to learn some more Factor, because I want to know how it is like to build big concatenative programs (although Forth and Postscript could tell me that too).