3 ms·
Though a joke, it does touch on something I've seen happen multiple times. A program goes from having human readable config files, to having a little built-in s
by analog31 5y ago
Though a joke, it does touch on something I've seen happen multiple times. A program goes from having human readable config files, to having a little built-in scripting language. An app that I use has built-in editors for 5 different languages, because each language evolved within a different section of the software. One of the languages is a crude version of BASIC. Plus there are instructions for interacting with the software via two different inter-process communication architectures: DDE and something else.
Naturally it brings the risk of second-system effect, but were this program to be written from scratch today, they'd probably just choose a scripting language from among the many interesting FOSS offerings, and use it across the board.
- pydry 5y agoI've seen the little gleam in programmers' eyes when they declare that "what we really need here is a mini language" more than once. It's a trap.
- michaelcampbell 5y agoI've grown from loving "little languages" as noted by Programming Pearls, to despising DSL's. Not for any overarching philosophical reasons, but mainly because modern DSL's are just awful. Maybe I've just come across bad ones.