3 ms·

You have not taken criticism very well at all I too thought you were saying pg was suggesting a DSL You argued the idea anyways, and “his point” > I argue th

You have not taken criticism very well at all I too thought you were saying pg was suggesting a DSL You argued the idea anyways, and “his point” > I argue that instead of those 3, the most applicable terminology to map to pg's idea would be a "DSL" ("Domain Specific Language".)[1] The "DSL" terminology seemed to have gained currency around 2008 so this old 1993 essay wasn't able to use it. In any case, his point is to program Lisp in such a way as to build a "DSL" inside of Lisp and you then program your higher level concepts on that DSL.

jasode 8y ago
>You have not taken criticism very well at all I accept lispm's criticism and have acknowledged his idea of DSL is correct. I don't accept his mischaracterization of what I wrote and tried to clarify the confusion I caused. I accepted lispm's threshold for what constitutes a DSL. He did not seem to accept my DSL-as-a-meme. >I too thought you were saying pg was suggesting a DSL I acknowledge that you and lispm thought I claimed PG was recommending a _DSL_. What I tried to convey is that PG was talking about a concept that many programmers would loosely call a "DSL". <formal>DSL</formal> != <scarequote>DSL</scarequote>. <formal>DSL</formal> != <meme>DSL</meme>. >You argued the idea anyways, and “his point” Yes... and I carefully wrote, "I argue that instead of those 3, the most applicable terminology to _map_ to pg's idea would be a "DSL": I was hoping the word "map" was a sufficiently loose qualification to turn off the literal computer science definition of DSL. Instead of claiming PG's technique _is_ a DSL, I'm saying programmers out there have this informal usage of "DSL" (quotes) as a _meme_ and that is the closest terminology they would use. (See my 3 links showing examples of "DSL" being thrown around when Lisp syntax is extended.) Of the candidate phrases such as "library", "framework, "DSL", and PG metaphors such as "border between two warring states" -- the "DSL" meme is the closest _mapping_ even if PG himself might disagree and say that adding custom operators to better suit the program is not a _DSL_. It's the same meme-vs-formal situation with C++. Some programmers would describe the design of classes as creating a "DSL"(quotes) within the C++ source code, but others would look at it and insist that they see no formal _DSL_ at all because there's no separate domain language that was explicitly defined and there's no separate text artifact that is parsed. (E.g. "Writing C++ classes isn't creating a DSL! That's just regular C++ programming!")

jasode 8y ago

>You have not taken criticism very well at all I accept lispm's criticism and have acknowledged his idea of DSL is correct. I don't accept his mischaracterization of what I wrote and tried to clarify the confusion I caused. I accepted lispm's threshold for what constitutes a DSL. He did not seem to accept my DSL-as-a-meme. >I too thought you were saying pg was suggesting a DSL I acknowledge that you and lispm thought I claimed PG was recommending a _DSL_. What I tried to convey is that PG was talking about a concept that many programmers would loosely call a "DSL". <formal>DSL</formal> != <scarequote>DSL</scarequote>. <formal>DSL</formal> != <meme>DSL</meme>. >You argued the idea anyways, and “his point” Yes... and I carefully wrote, "I argue that instead of those 3, the most applicable terminology to _map_ to pg's idea would be a "DSL": I was hoping the word "map" was a sufficiently loose qualification to turn off the literal computer science definition of DSL. Instead of claiming PG's technique _is_ a DSL, I'm saying programmers out there have this informal usage of "DSL" (quotes) as a _meme_ and that is the closest terminology they would use. (See my 3 links showing examples of "DSL" being thrown around when Lisp syntax is extended.) Of the candidate phrases such as "library", "framework, "DSL", and PG metaphors such as "border between two warring states" -- the "DSL" meme is the closest _mapping_ even if PG himself might disagree and say that adding custom operators to better suit the program is not a _DSL_. It's the same meme-vs-formal situation with C++. Some programmers would describe the design of classes as creating a "DSL"(quotes) within the C++ source code, but others would look at it and insist that they see no formal _DSL_ at all because there's no separate domain language that was explicitly defined and there's no separate text artifact that is parsed. (E.g. "Writing C++ classes isn't creating a DSL! That's just regular C++ programming!")