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

[REBOL] Re: Language-oriented programming

From: edoconnor:gm:ail at: 20-Sep-2007 17:08

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! Time to go study LOP at the knee of my local barista.