4 ms·
The point of the article was that creating a sufficiently powerful language, that doesn't offer easy ways[1] of extending the syntax, does not warrant the criti
by Confusion 17y ago
The point of the article was that creating a sufficiently powerful language, that doesn't offer easy ways[1] of extending the syntax, does not warrant the criticism that the language has 'too much syntax'. If anything, it demonstrates the power of being able to create syntax. I don't understand how your comment relates to that point.
[1] Of course you can "do it all" in any Turing-complete language, but theoretical possibilities are often much less interesting than practical impossibilities. In Python or Java, creating new syntax is so hard it might as well not be possible.
- stcredzero 17y agoExercise for the student -- find the contradiction here: The point of the article was that creating a sufficiently powerful language, that doesn't offer easy ways[1] of extending the syntax, does not warrant the criticism that the language has 'too much syntax'. Evidently, you are as inexperienced with DSLs as the author. Of course you can "do it all" in any Turing-complete language, but theoretical possibilities are often much less interesting than practical impossibilities. In Python or Java, creating new syntax is so hard it might as well not be possible. Insufficient knowledge is probably why you mistook the sense of the statement you are replying to by 180 degrees.
- Confusion 17y agoExercise for the student -- find the contradiction here: You consider 'sufficiently powerful' and "doesn't offer easy ways of extending the syntax" to be contradictory. Does that mean you consider only Lisps 'sufficiently powerful'? Insufficient knowledge is probably why you mistook the sense of the statement you are replying to by 180 degrees. Do you mean extending the syntax of Python or Java is easy? Otherwise I'm not sure what the knowledge is you think I'm lacking.