2009/10/7 Günther Schmidt
Hi Don,
I've informally argued that a true DSL -- separate from a good API -- should have semantic characteristics of a language: binding forms, control structures, abstraction, composition. Some have type systems.
That is one requirement that confuses me, abstraction.
I thought of DSLs as "special purpose" languages, ie. you give your DSL everything it needs for that purpose.
Why would it also need the ability to express even further abstractions, it is supposed to *be* the abstraction.
Günther _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hi, Programming abstractions at the DSL level, not to further abstract what the DSL covers. Functions, for instance, are typical abstraction means offered by programming languages. Even if your language is specific to some domain, being able to create your own functions, and not only rely on those provided by the DSL implementation, is important. Imagine a (E)DSL for 3D programming (e.g. shading language): the language is designed to fit well the problem (e.g. in this case, 3D linear algebra, color operations, ...) but you'll agree it would be a shame to not be able to provide your own functions. Cheers, Thu