3 ms·
I don't buy the DSL argument, as it's not more suitable for any domain than any other language unless shuffling COBOL specific data structures from a DL/1 datab
by kpil 10y ago
I don't buy the DSL argument, as it's not more suitable for any domain than any other language unless shuffling COBOL specific data structures from a DL/1 database counts as a domain.
Interestingly, Lisp is (slightly) older than COBOL and is actually truly living up to the DSL thing - at least nowadays.
Both languages are actually centered around data structures - kind of, but while COBOL is massively built on fixed structures and boilerplate, lisp is built around dynamic structures of lists (and pairs - or CONS) .
It's interesting that they were invented more or less at the same time, as COBOL feels as dated as anything can be, and Lisp feels rather ok. Scheme (a dialect) is more than 40 years old and is actually rather fun to program in, and feels modern in more or less every sense.
- groovy2shoes 10y agoThe Scheme of today is extremely different from the Scheme of 40 years ago. Comparing the language of R0RS and R1RS with R5RS, you'll see just how different they are. I'd say that "modern" Scheme is due more to Clinger than to Sussman & Steele! My point is that, yes, Scheme as a concept originated in the mid 70s, but it has been updated many times over the years. The Scheme of today isn't 40 years old.
- kazinator 10y agoLisp source code is built around structures of lists built on cons pairs (and numbers, symbols, string literals, other kinds of literals, ...). (COBOL source code is just characters.) Lisp data structures are varied. CLOS objects, multi-dimensional arrays, hash tables, strings, bit fields, ...