That may be true for functions which operate on a generic Monad typeclass, but typeclasses (Higher kinded types) aren't required to implement concrete Functor / Applicative / Monad instances for a particular type, e.g. Maybe:
fmap f Nothing = Nothing
fmap f (Just x) = Just (f x)
pure x = Just x
Nothing >>= f = Nothing
Just x >>= f = f x
In a lazy language like Haskell, the order in which things are actually evaluated is f -> g -> h -> x, because arguments to a function are only evaluated when the are needed, rather than before they are called. But even so, I still prefer writing it as x |> h |> g |> f.
You're probably thinking of Ian Piumarta's COLA project (Combined Object Lambda Architecture), which had parts named after cola soft-drinks (Coke was a lisp-like language, Pepsi was a Smalltalk-like language, and Jolt was an early implementation of Coke):
Congrats to the Squeak 6.1 team! I was an early contributor to Squeak from when Alan Kay's group was at Apple (I see that SameGame, the first game implemented in Morphic is still in the image), and still enjoy following the progress of Squeak and all of its spinoffs.
Ocaml was very simple to program in to be honest, and has very minimal rules as well so i can be productive with the development of the language, Rust also used ocaml in it's early versions for bootstrapping
The registers could also be partitioned into fixed sizes and protected, to allow for a banked register file that allowed for amazingly fast context switches in RTOS systems.
> Well that was basically an am29000 but with an x86 instruction decoder front end.
The K5 was based upon a 29K-family design, but it was actually an un-released superscalar project code-named "Jaguar", rather than just a 29K with an x86 decoder.
Yep, it wound up as the main CPU in a bunch of laser-printers, as well as Apple's 8*24GC QuickDraw accelerator card for the Macintosh, and as part of the flight-control computer on Boeing 777s, among many other embedded system designs.
.jpg){kind=link}