4 ms·

Cool, but what about code maintainability? Why add microlanguages? I'm sure your microlanguage is superintuitive to you, because you wrote it, but I, as a new c

Cool, but what about code maintainability? Why add microlanguages? I'm sure your microlanguage is superintuitive to you, because you wrote it, but I, as a new coder on your code, don't want to learn it.

macmac 16y ago
That is a valid concern, although a well designed micro language will likely also reduce the code base significantly and thereby leave less to learn. If it is well constructed it will also serve as an easy way of learning about the domain which you will have to anyway.
- petervandijck 16y ago
  Fair enough. Or, a well designed micro language may just be that, well designed but entirely unnecessary :)
  - wilig 16y ago
    Touché!
  - gruseom 16y ago
    As anamax points out, you could say the same thing about a well designed anything, so this isn't an argument against languages, so it isn't an argument at all. It reminds me of how most of the objections people make to macros apply just as well to functions.
chc 16y ago
Every codebase and accompanying API is something you have to learn. If you don't want to learn, best not ever do maintenance. A "microlanguage" is just better suited to the problem domain than a normal API.
anamax 16y ago
> I'm sure your microlanguage is superintuitive to you, because you wrote it, but I, as a new coder on your code, don't want to learn it. I'm sure your API is superintuitive to you, because you wrote it, but I, as a new coder on your code, don't want to learn it. I'm sure your library is superintuitive to you, because you wrote it, but I, as a new coder on your code, don't want to learn it.
- petervandijck 16y ago
  Mmm. No. It takes longer to learn a language than an API, in general. I don't think I'm wrong about that?
s-phi-nl 16y ago
See http://paulgraham.com/progbot.html http://paulgraham.com/progbot.html
jimbokun 16y ago
In this case, he's trying to make it more idiomatic within the surrounding Clojure code, and thus, more intuitive for the intended user.

macmac 16y ago

That is a valid concern, although a well designed micro language will likely also reduce the code base significantly and thereby leave less to learn. If it is well constructed it will also serve as an easy way of learning about the domain which you will have to anyway.

petervandijck 16y ago
Fair enough. Or, a well designed micro language may just be that, well designed but entirely unnecessary :)
- wilig 16y ago
  Touché!
- gruseom 16y ago
  As anamax points out, you could say the same thing about a well designed anything, so this isn't an argument against languages, so it isn't an argument at all. It reminds me of how most of the objections people make to macros apply just as well to functions.

chc 16y ago

Every codebase and accompanying API is something you have to learn. If you don't want to learn, best not ever do maintenance. A "microlanguage" is just better suited to the problem domain than a normal API.

anamax 16y ago

> I'm sure your microlanguage is superintuitive to you, because you wrote it, but I, as a new coder on your code, don't want to learn it. I'm sure your API is superintuitive to you, because you wrote it, but I, as a new coder on your code, don't want to learn it. I'm sure your library is superintuitive to you, because you wrote it, but I, as a new coder on your code, don't want to learn it.

petervandijck 16y ago
Mmm. No. It takes longer to learn a language than an API, in general. I don't think I'm wrong about that?

s-phi-nl 16y ago

See http://paulgraham.com/progbot.html http://paulgraham.com/progbot.html

jimbokun 16y ago

In this case, he's trying to make it more idiomatic within the surrounding Clojure code, and thus, more intuitive for the intended user.