LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  November 2010

CODE4LIB November 2010

Subject:

Re: Let's go somewhere [was PHP vs. Python...]

From:

Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:08:45 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (125 lines)

DSL's are simple to create in ruby.  Becuase what people call a DSL in 
ruby is almost always just plain ruby methods -- it's in that context 
that I don't even like the phrase "DSL".  In ruby, developers very 
seldomly find a need to create actually another language with it's own 
grammar and parser and such -- people accomplish the same thing just by 
creating the right ruby methods.  The way that ruby supports the concise 
supplying of code blocks as arguments to methods is usually the key 
thing people rely on to do this.

Will Kurt wrote:
> This is one of my favorite passage from SICP:
>
> "It is no exaggeration to regard this as the most fundamental idea in
> programming:
>
> The evaluator, which determines the meaning of expressions in a programming
> language, is just another program.
>
> To appreciate this point is to change our images of ourselves as
> programmers. We come to see ourselves as designers of languages, rather than
> only users of languages designed by others."
>
> In general I think there is too much fear of using language as just another
> means of abstraction.  While I certainly agree that creating an entire
> language from scratch is a bad idea, I don't think it would be insane to
> create a dsl to solve a common set of problems on top of an existing
> runtime. I actually think this would be particularly useful in the library
> world since there is such a range of programming talent, a dsl that
> simplified some common library related tasks could certainly be useful,
> especially if there was full language underneath.
>
> Of course there is the problem that even DSLs are not simple to create, the
> number of library programmers with experience in parsers and language design
> is probably very, very small.  But the ease of creating dsl is increasing
> and I think their use will get more popular over time (hopefully).
>
>
>
>   
>> From: Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Date: November 1, 2010 11:03:13 AM PDT
>> To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Let's go somewhere [was PHP vs. Python...]
>> Reply-To: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]>>
>>
>> I would be very unlikely to use someone's homegrown library specific
>> scripting language.
>>
>> However, if you want to make a library for an existing popular scripting
>> language that handles your specific domain well, I'd be quite likely to
>> use that if I had a problem with your domain and I was comfortable with
>> the existing popular scripting language, i'd use it for sure. Odds are
>> your domain is not really "libraries" (that's not really a software
>> problem domain), but perhaps as Patrick suggests "dealing with
>> relationships among semantic objects", and then odds are libraries are
>> not the only people interested in this problem domain.
>>
>> Some people like ruby because of it's support for creating what they
>> call "domain specific languages", which I think is a silly phrase, which
>> really just means "a libraryAPI at the right level of abstraction for
>> the tasks at hand, so you can accomplish the tasks at hand concisely and
>> without repeated code."
>>
>> Patrick Etienne wrote:
>> Peter -
>>
>> I was bewildered at the notion of needing yet another scripting
>> language, let alone one as "library domain-specific" (that wording
>> alone throws up red flags everywhere), but I'm not here to bash ideas.
>> Instead I looked up your site and read the small blurb about "Nova".
>> It seems that the main objective behind your pursuit is creating a
>> language that provides a specific data type for semantic objects (or
>> relationships). I have to ask, what about semantic maps makes you
>> believe that they require a specific data type rather than just being
>> an object type? Are other scripting languages too slow to suit certain
>> needs such that a new data type is necessitated? I really can't see
>> this being the case. That being said, while it can be an invaluable
>> experience to learn about making scripting languages, if there's to be
>> any community movement toward a particular language (php, ruby, java,
>> scheme or what have you) there has to be some very real and
>> significant benefit.
>>
>> Or more directly, you seem to have specific ideas about a library
>> domain-specific language. What do today's languages not have that you
>> believe is so essential that you'd be willing to write a new scripting
>> language?
>>
>> - Patrick E.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Peter Schlumpf
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Bill, you hit a nail pretty squarely on the head.  I believe this decades
>> long fetish with MARC has to go.  It was designed to efficiently store data
>> on magtapes and doesn't make any sense in today's world.  It's a huge
>> millstone around the neck of Libraryland and it keeps them stuck in that
>> tiny little ghetto.  Anything can be a mind-prison, even PHP, Python or
>> Django.  They are all arbitrary anyway.
>>
>> And you are correct in pointing out that the natural response of librarians
>> to a problem is to seek consensus in a self-absorbed way.  Form committees
>> and all that nonsense which never goes anywhere.  They are happy enough
>> going around in circles, like the Nowhere Man making all his nowhere plans
>> for nobody.
>>
>> My hope is that some among us would just undertake these problems
>> ourselves.  Outside of the realm of the libraries and the limiting mindsets
>> many of us work in.  We've all got ideas.  Fire up vi and get busy and make
>> something happen, like a library domain-specific language.  Start fresh.
>>  There is nothing wrong with that.  What's wrong is how the library
>> community goes about such things.
>>
>> Let's go somewhere.
>>
>> Peter Schlumpf
>> www.avantilibrarysystems.com<http://www.avantilibrarysystems.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1011&L=CODE4LIB&P=3908
lists.clir.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-35
61038
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:2ZZ7SC53MVEY73THRETXNPMZZUCGCFQE
<urn:uuid:28c0b2b7-1a3e-4354-85ac-d6c79550340d>
2019-08-20T22:23:48Z
66.175.211.245
text/html
sha1:KMKU7GYA6HONPBF2X2FJFDS4M2LXJ5WF
<urn:uuid:8ed71c17-cf10-4d11-85df-3f387aa7ecf3>
https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1011&L=CODE4LIB&P=3908
response
<urn:uuid:c7261e2e-adb3-4bed-8ca8-fb2ba99fa552>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-35
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-13.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/