4 ms·
I second this. People can go very, very far with simple and sand boxed Domain Specific Languages that are targeted towards the core function. There are so many
by vsskanth 7y ago
I second this. People can go very, very far with simple and sand boxed Domain Specific Languages that are targeted towards the core function.
There are so many commercial successes for this approach: CAD, MATLAB, Simulink, LabVIEW, Dymola, Excel (?)
The biggest issue with many of these tools is that they tend to be closed source, proprietary formats, onerous licensing terms, not easily extended and aren't easy to deploy into an automated production workflow.
Some are addressing this with an option to export a compiled binary, but many try to up sell you complete ecosystems (PLM) to keep you locked into their proprietary formats. This tends to frustrate devs.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- xiwenc 7y agoI mostly agree with you. As an independent professional, I hate complete ecosystem platforms also. We need composable systems. Not more locked down. Mendix (https://www.mendix.com https://www.mendix.com) does a lot of that well but as you pointed out it's proprietary. If we look at history, successful predecessors like C, Java and Python (sorted by difficulty) are all open standards. I think the next low/no code platform to open their specifications wins the race. Disclaimer: I've worked for Mendix.