Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: Language-oriented programming

From: tim-johnsons::web::com at: 20-Sep-2007 14:58

On Thursday 20 September 2007, Ed O'Connor wrote:
> On 9/20/07, Tim Johnson wrote: > > On Thursday 20 September 2007, Ed O'Connor wrote: > > > Language-oriented programming is interesting and caused a small stir a > > > couple of years ago. Unfortunately, it hasn't gone anywhere, > > > > > :-) What about parse? > > > > Common LISP has used the DSL approach for decades, I believe. > > This is true, and I didn't mean to suggest that DSLs emerged 2 years > ago, but the term language-oriented did. Sadly, I don't think are any > DSL lanuages (in the classic sense) which are considered mainstream. > > There is quite a spectrum of what DSL-ish constructs: > 1- a high-level abstraction > 2- a function, or collection of functions > 3- a markup/formatting language or shorthand > 4- a little language such as SQL or the UNIX utils > 5- a 4GL or NLP-ish script such as ZIL (Inform Language) or AppleScript > 6- a lingo or domain language (e.g., Iced Decaf Triple Vanilla Skim latte) > > But I prefer not to hash that out here. My (admittedly ineffective) > definition of a DSL is more like the FCC's definition of indecency: "I > know it when I see it." I suspect that the less a construct > looks/feels like something that might be called a DSL (such as #6 > above), the more successful it probably is!
I think of DSL in terms of degree. As in OOP there are degrees - I used to do OOP in ansi C. It wasn't Object programming like smalltalk or even python, but employed some of the priciples. I'm happy that rebol provides *some* degree of DSL
> Time to go study LOP at the knee of my local barista.
That would be an OOPs if I did that :-) tj