2 ms·
You're replying to an, arguably, "no true Scotsman" argument with a straw man of your own: > but rather in Lisp plus some half-baked DSL Why does it need to b
by klibertp 9y ago
You're replying to an, arguably, "no true Scotsman" argument with a straw man of your own:
> but rather in Lisp plus some half-baked DSL
Why does it need to be "half-baked"? Why do you assume that writing a good DSL is impossible for most Lisp users? Are you sure it's actually the case?
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoIf I understand "the Lisp curse" correctly, the claim is that Lisp often winds up with a "half-baked DSL" because making DSLs in Lisp is so easy. You can do it without putting very much thought into it, so it's easy for the original author to just slap something together. Note well: This is my understanding of the claim. I take no position on whether it is true.
- btilly 9y agoWhy does it need to be "half-baked"? Why do you assume that writing a good DSL is impossible for most Lisp users? Are you sure it's actually the case? Writing and maintaining a good DSL is like writing and maintaining bug free code. You always start with the best of intentions, but human fallibility and entropy are always pulling you in the wrong direction. This doesn't mean that the attempt is not worthwhile. But it does mean that you should expect eventual failure.
- jdmichal 9y agoAs other commenters have replied: It's half-baked the same way Java tends towards half-baked enterprise design lasagna and/or design pattern bingo. It's easy to do, and most won't question it. Also, yes I would propose that a good DSL would be difficult to write for most programmers of any type. Not because of any inherit deficiency in the programmer, but rather because we tend not to spend enough time in a single domain to understand it well enough to write a good DSL.