[williamcotton]

There’s two things that the article mentions that your omni-language has massive problems with:

1.) Performance. For example a run-time for a user-friendly little language that maps HTTP requests to SQL queries can be much faster than a language that does the same thing by plugging user-friendly APIs together. A custom run-time can parse an HTTP request string directly into SQLite op code while the JS developer is writing glue code that takes orders of magnitude more memory and CPU time.

2.) Static analysis. This means tools that are better at finding bugs, finding optimizations, visualizing structure, etc.

[lolinder]

Both of these things are theoretically true, but only if the little language has enough resources behind it to optimize and build enough tooling. A big language is much more likely to have those resources because the target market is big enough to justify it. A niche little language will likely never get that kind of mass behind it, so the tools will be lacking and the runtime won't be optimized.

[williamcotton]

Big general purpose languages don’t have the capability for certain kinds of performance improvements or static analysis so the market size isn’t a factor.

[lolinder]

My point isn't that the big languages can do everything that a little language could theoretically do, it's that the little languages won't have the resources to pull them off, nor will they have the resources to even do what the big languages do.

Proper debugging, syntax highlighting, language servers, security audits. These are things that engineers in the real world expect a language to have, and each little language would have to reinvent each of them. In contrast, a library can piggyback off of the tooling provided in the host language.

So even if a language can deliver on the performance and static analysis that it promises (which few will), it cannot reach adoption because it cannot provide the infrastructure needed.

(That doesn't need even get into the onboarding concerns that I and others have raised about having a codebase that is strung together from a dozen tiny languages.)

[williamcotton]

Proper debugging, syntax highlighting, language servers, security audits. These are things that engineers in the real world expect a language to have, and each little language would have to reinvent each of them.

I don’t always see this as the case and this might be a very fruitful area for research. What I mean is, much like how we have tools like bison, antlr, and the k framework, I could easily see this notion extending to language servers, etc.

As for onboarding, well, who are we onboarding? New software engineers working on a general purpose language or new operations members working on a DSL?

I remember a time when CSS and HTML had yet to be consumed by a general purpose language and the onboarding for new web designers was significantly easier.

[lolinder]

> I don’t always see this as the case and this might be a very fruitful area for research. What I mean is, much like how we have tools like bison, antlr, and the k framework, I could easily see this notion extending to language servers, etc.

Yeah, I could see this happening, to a point. I'm not convinced it will happen, because what would be the impetus?

> I remember a time when CSS and HTML had yet to be consumed by a general purpose language and the onboarding for new web designers was significantly easier.

So do I. I had a friend whose dad wanted to start building web pages for a living, right at the moment when that job was starting to vanish.

At least two factors were involved in that shift:

1. More and more companies wanted web applications, not simple web sites. A functional web app requires engineering effort or it falls apart, whereas a simple web site just requires making things look right. Once these companies had engineers for a web app, it was simpler just to pay them to build out a marketing page than to hire that out (even if hiring it out would have been cheaper).

2. WordPress was becoming more and more approachable, and others like SquareSpace stepped in to make it even easier for a non-technical person to build a website. Companies that didn't need engineers for an app realized that they could do a good enough job for their needs by just using these tools in-house.

I suspect this is the fate of any little language that successfully eliminates the need for engineers: if we can take a piece of a domain and describe it in a DSL that is streamlined enough for no-effort onboarding, it won't take very long for the DSL to be made redundant by GUI tools that are even easier to use.

At that point, the DSL either goes away entirely or it morphs into something bigger to meet more complex needs (as HTML/CSS/JS did).

(This doesn't apply to DSLs like Regex and SQL that are designed for use by engineers, but then we're back to the question of whether an external DSL is pulling its weight relative to an equivalent library.)

[williamcotton]

> what would be the impetus?

That there are many issues with general purpose programming languages such as those outlined by the author in the article?

> I suspect this is the fate of any little language that successfully eliminates the need for engineers: if we can take a piece of a domain and describe it in a DSL that is streamlined enough for no-effort onboarding, it won't take very long for the DSL to be made redundant by GUI tools that are even easier to use.

That seems ideal! Domain-specific languages have always benefited from GUI tooling alongside anything that is less clunky as textual representation.

[origin_path]

It is a fruitful area for research! Truffle is an example of the sort of framework you mean. Implement a parser+interpreter using Truffle and you get JIT compilation, GC, debugging, profiling and more stuff for free on top of the JVM.

[williamcotton]

Thank you for introducing me to Truffle! Off to write some DSLs I go!

[hinkley]

I don’t want to spend all day playing human debugger because your little language doesn’t support debugging.

I’m not here to tell you how very clever you are for reinventing the wheel. I have my own shot to get done and that’s easier when we make a smaller language out of our general purpose language by agreeing to style guidelines, instead of avoiding solving social problems with technology by creating your own game to change the rules.

When everyone in your group expects the rest of the team to commit 10% of our attention to their tool or module, that doesn’t scale. If we go more than 50% total our capacity to solve problems becomes hamstrung.

If you work someplace where new devs are useless for a year, you’ve likely already got the snowflake disease.

[williamcotton]

What does any of what you’ve written have to do with the concerns raised by the author of the article?

[hinkley]

> People have been making this argument since the 80s and possibly even earlier. My experience is often the opposite. Little languages are usually far, far harder than (mis-)using "big" languages for small tasks.

From the top level comment.

It’s also the primary failure mode for DSLs. There’s never any thought for tracing and debugging, and so it becomes a peaen to the primary author(‘s ego).

Once you no longer have impostor syndrome it gets much harder to play along with these ego trips. It’s not that I’m too dumb to understand your DSL, it’s that you’re a fool who thinks writing your own language is the pinnacle of success. It’s very rare for it to better than a decent API and you’re thinking about yourself, not your coworkers.

That’s why everyone always mentions SQL. It’s the exception to the rule, not an example of when DSLs can be good. Remember XSLT. Remember a dozen other failed DSLs. Per decade. Forever and ever.

[williamcotton]

So every new language is written be a fool on an ego trip? Or are you calling me the fool?

I'm having a very hard time separating what seems to be a painful personal experience from a productive conversation about the future of programming languages.

[dinosaurdynasty]

There are certain kinds of analysis a non Turing complete language can have that a Turing complete language can never have.

[williamcotton]

I think I figured out the issue in this discussion. The article is actually about general purpose vs domain specific and not really about big and little… and unfortunately since most “DSLs” are APIs written for in general purpose languages the author resorted to using the term “little language”.

[BiteCode_dev]

In your story, the small language fits local optimum, and becomes popular in its niche where it's good at.

So small languages are not the future, which is what the article suggests.

They are either niche (bash), dead (tcl), or gets big (sql).

[williamcotton]

1.) Bash is not niche.

2.) SQL is not a general purpose programming language and is used as an example of a little language by the author.

I can clearly imagine a future where instead of a few large general purpose languages we have a multitude of niche languages that have better performance characteristics, better tooling and smaller individual learning curves.

[BiteCode_dev]

I won't repeat the other comments I made, but in summary, yes bash is niche, stuck in a local optimum, no sql is not small anymore.