|
|
|
|
|
by hinkley
1302 days ago
|
|
> 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. |
|
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.