5 ms·
Sure I know about DSLs in Lisps and such, but I don't think LISP DSLs are quite on the level of SQL. If everyone creates their own DSLs I don't think it has the
by ludamad 12y ago
Sure I know about DSLs in Lisps and such, but I don't think LISP DSLs are quite on the level of SQL. If everyone creates their own DSLs I don't think it has the same impact.
- jared314 12y ago> but I don't think LISP DSLs are quite on the level of SQL I'm curious what you mean by this. Is your definition of a DSL based on the language's syntax, or on the language's paradigm? Clojure's core.logic [1] provides logic programming, as apposed to functional programming, but maintains the syntax of a LISP. [1] https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/Examples https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/Examples
- lmm 12y agoI think the reason LISP remains obscure is that syntax is important and LISP syntax is an unpleasant way to express a lot of domain languages. (I work with embedded DSLs quite a lot, but in Scala, where infix and postfix operators are easy)
- sklogic 12y agoSyntax is nothing. It's trivial to build any kind of syntax on top of Lisp, with arbitrary complex DSLs. See an example here: https://github.com/combinatorylogic/mbase https://github.com/combinatorylogic/mbase
- deerpig 12y agoCheck out Pilog which is a query language DSL for working with picolisp's built-in databases.... I'd be interested in hearing from people with more knowledge of SQL than I do to see how they compare.