3 ms·

I'm neither a fan of new languages nor dsl's, so I'm in a minority? Rather than a dsl, I want a great API, and before apis I want compact and expressive utiliza

I'm neither a fan of new languages nor dsl's, so I'm in a minority? Rather than a dsl, I want a great API, and before apis I want compact and expressive utilization of existing apis.

lewisf 8y ago
I also agreed with this until very recently. Jumped into a new language and realized how language features can help shape great APIs.
heavenlyblue 8y ago
DSL is more like a generalisation of config files.
- mutagen 8y ago
  While that is one quite useful application of DSLs, they're certainly used more widely than config files. Care to expand further?
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    I said "generalisation". You're thinking I mean DSLs in a static way - where they compile to a single static structure that is like a configuration file. I am trying to redefine the term here instead, because it seems more appropriate. Essentially what I am asking here is: where do we set the line between "scripts" and "configuration files"? Because scripts are simply configuration files with a tree-like structure as they represent programs. Scripts "configure the execution paths of your program". A DSL thus is just a configuration file with a set of rules of applying those tree-like structures to each other.
    - elcomet 8y ago
      Scripts are definitely not configuration file. I would say the line is Turing-completeness. For me, DSL are half way between configuration files and scripts. If they are not Turing complete they are configuration languages. If they are, then they are programming language (with a specific use case). And I think that it is usually a bad idea to have configuration files in Turing complete languages (with exceptions, it can certainly be done well).
      - heavenlyblue 8y ago
        >> Scripts are definitely not configuration file. >> I would say the line is Turing-completeness. >> For me, DSL are half way between configuration files and scripts _you_ would say. >> If they are not Turing complete they are configuration languages. If they are, then they are programming language (with a specific use case). Or, you could say that DSLs are what they are: "Domain Specific Languages". Which means that can either be a set of static definitions a-la configuration file, or on another side they can be scripts. All of these definitions fit really well the meaning of "Domain Specific Language".
- karmakaze 8y ago
  Mose DSLs I encounter started as configs and tend to be inelegant because they're incidental rather than planned languages. I applaud thinking in terms of languages up front and exercising restraint to keep it to the bare minimum.
humanrebar 8y ago
I think it's worth demonstrating that more pedestrian approaches are insufficient before writing a new language. New languages can be worth the effort, but they are certainly expensive approaches, all things considered.
dmitriid 8y ago
A good API (and the client to that API) is indistinguishable from a DSL :)
geocar 8y ago
The decision to bring a new language into the world is not one taken lightly. There are simply too many languages. DSLs are nonetheless a "necessary" evil; Most languages are too narrow to be useful for everything, so anywhere you see a boundary in your language -- something that might be done better in another -- your code will be shorter, it will be faster, and you will make fewer bugs. But what if we can create a language with no boundaries? That language would not need a DSL.

I'm neither a fan of new languages nor dsl's, so I'm in a minority? Rather than a dsl, I want a great API, and before apis I want compact and expressive utilization of existing apis.

lewisf 8y ago

I also agreed with this until very recently. Jumped into a new language and realized how language features can help shape great APIs.

heavenlyblue 8y ago

DSL is more like a generalisation of config files.

mutagen 8y ago
While that is one quite useful application of DSLs, they're certainly used more widely than config files. Care to expand further?
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  I said "generalisation". You're thinking I mean DSLs in a static way - where they compile to a single static structure that is like a configuration file. I am trying to redefine the term here instead, because it seems more appropriate. Essentially what I am asking here is: where do we set the line between "scripts" and "configuration files"? Because scripts are simply configuration files with a tree-like structure as they represent programs. Scripts "configure the execution paths of your program". A DSL thus is just a configuration file with a set of rules of applying those tree-like structures to each other.
  - elcomet 8y ago
    Scripts are definitely not configuration file. I would say the line is Turing-completeness. For me, DSL are half way between configuration files and scripts. If they are not Turing complete they are configuration languages. If they are, then they are programming language (with a specific use case). And I think that it is usually a bad idea to have configuration files in Turing complete languages (with exceptions, it can certainly be done well).
    - heavenlyblue 8y ago
      >> Scripts are definitely not configuration file. >> I would say the line is Turing-completeness. >> For me, DSL are half way between configuration files and scripts _you_ would say. >> If they are not Turing complete they are configuration languages. If they are, then they are programming language (with a specific use case). Or, you could say that DSLs are what they are: "Domain Specific Languages". Which means that can either be a set of static definitions a-la configuration file, or on another side they can be scripts. All of these definitions fit really well the meaning of "Domain Specific Language".
karmakaze 8y ago
Mose DSLs I encounter started as configs and tend to be inelegant because they're incidental rather than planned languages. I applaud thinking in terms of languages up front and exercising restraint to keep it to the bare minimum.

humanrebar 8y ago

I think it's worth demonstrating that more pedestrian approaches are insufficient before writing a new language. New languages can be worth the effort, but they are certainly expensive approaches, all things considered.

dmitriid 8y ago

A good API (and the client to that API) is indistinguishable from a DSL :)

geocar 8y ago

The decision to bring a new language into the world is not one taken lightly. There are simply too many languages. DSLs are nonetheless a "necessary" evil; Most languages are too narrow to be useful for everything, so anywhere you see a boundary in your language -- something that might be done better in another -- your code will be shorter, it will be faster, and you will make fewer bugs. But what if we can create a language with no boundaries? That language would not need a DSL.