4 ms·

I like your point, it goes against the lambda-ultimate post linked separately in the thread. If you accept your point (cross-lang-loading) and accept the LTU ar

I like your point, it goes against the lambda-ultimate post linked separately in the thread. If you accept your point (cross-lang-loading) and accept the LTU argument about the benefits of internal DSLs (you're not slowly reinventing a useful turing-complete language) then you would maybe want to use a very simple, easily interpreted language for your DSL and embed an interpreter for that. (I (can't (think (of any though))))

lmm 8y ago
> then you would maybe want to use a very simple, easily interpreted language for your DSL Right, which is essentially what Dhall is. There aren't any established "real" programming languages that are restricted enough (non-Turing complete, etc.) to use for this kind of case. > (I (can't (think (of any though)))) S-expressions are never going to succeed; there are too many subtly incompatible variations going around already, and their fans are unwilling to compromise and agree on a common standard.