3 ms·
> 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 o
by 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