|
> Just one little extra bit of functionality, and ... whoops! Suddenly, you can program there, so now you will have to program there. That's an argument for programming languages in configuration, not against. It's just that we need good languages there, so that if you "have to program there" it's not a painstaking experience. Designing a programming language is hard. Really, really hard. Or rather it's extremely easy to make completely unusable language, especially if it wasn't designed as a language from the start. You don't want to do this to your users and to yourself. You either just don't include a programmable configuration, which is a fine tradeoff, or you include a "real" language from the start. For scripting languages it's easy, just use themselves. For compiled languages it's even easier: just use Lua or Scheme and be done with it. But please, whatever you do, don't invent your own configuration (what's wrong with standard "key = value" format anyway?) format and if you do DON'T try to gradually extend it into a language. It will be hideous, unusable, insecure, unreadable, impossible to debug, buggy like hell and will haunt you forever in nightmares. That being said, don't be afraid to experiment and try to build a language if you want. Just don't force it on others in production environment until you're sure it's not as described above :) |