5 ms·
This is true for languages that try to be all things to all people (a la Java). All languages are DSLs, and if you target just a few specific domains and beat b
by toprerules 9y ago
This is true for languages that try to be all things to all people (a la Java). All languages are DSLs, and if you target just a few specific domains and beat back the masses who want the language to expand beyond its intended purpose, than simplicity remains possible.
- crdoconnor 9y agoDSLs shouldn't be turing complete and turing complete languages shouldn't try to be DSLs. Ant was a DSL that managed to become turing complete and the results were pretty horrible.
- nerdponx 9y agoTuring completeness is a symptom, not a cause. No one would argue that SQL is bad because some implementations are Turing-complete [0]. [0]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/7580013 https://stackoverflow.com/a/7580013
- crdoconnor 9y ago>No one would argue that SQL is bad because some implementations are Turing-complete They do actually. Though when people do say that it tends to be phrased "keeping business logic in stored procedures is a bad idea". People argue that all the damn time. Accidental turing completeness usually signals a design flaw somewhere (would you also consider it too controversial to argue that C++ templates mentioned in your link are nasty and people complain about them a lot?).