Shell piping isn't Forth.

I didn't say it was forth, I said it was concatenative.

Forth itself is hard to categorize since it refuses to standardize but we all know what it looks like, I'd say its a low level language/VM that manages everything through stacks (usually 2) there's forthlike languages and also concatenative languages. concatenative languages can be far removed from forth, I don't mean that the shell itself is concatenative, but only the shell pipelining aspect, which you can imitate in any forth. take an object and keep passing it to subsequent functions without popping that know s how to handle that object, that's a shell pipeline to me, all of unix can be passed the /dev/std* objects and they can all modify it and pass it along to the next function/program.

https://concatenative.org/

	▲	kragen a day ago \| parent [-]
		Well, I agree that Forth is concatenative (like stack languages in general), and so are shell pipelines. But you said, "Just because you don't specifically use forth does not mean forth is dead," and unless I misread your intent, you included your shell-scripting point on the theory that it was relevant to that question: whether or not Forth was dead. The implication seemed to be that, as long as people were using shell pipelines, Forth wouldn't be dead. But that's wrong; Forth could be totally dead while other forms of concatenative programming were alive and well.