Rails is not a porgramming language, for various pedantic reasons. That doesn't make your idea bad. Rails is a defined pattern of expressing a program, conceptually similar to a language. You could call it a dialect.
Re:Peter Naur has died
by phyllostachys on Monday January 04, 2016 @01:32PM
(#10837421)
Rail[1] is a programming language, but that is orthogonal to your point.
Re:Peter Naur has died
by michaelcampbell on Sunday January 03, 2016 @11:04PM
(#10833931)
Rails isn't a programming language at all, so it can't really be a "unique" one.
Re:Peter Naur has died
by iancarroll on Sunday January 03, 2016 @07:51PM
(#10833421)
Ruby on Rails is one of many frameworks on top of the Ruby language.
The grandparent was right, in a sense, because while Rails definitely is not a standalone language on its own, it is an embedded DSL since you are working at a much higher level of abstraction than what Ruby offers out-of-the-box.
Re:Peter Naur has died
by akshatpradhan on Tuesday January 05, 2016 @10:06AM
(#10843535)
You could say the same about Ruby and C.
>Ruby is a DSL for C since you are working at a much higher level of abstraction than what C offers out of the box.
What does "not a unique programming language" mean? Perhaps 'discrete' or 'distinct' in place of 'unique'? As not an RoR developer, I'm hardly in a position to say, but surely at a certain point a DSL deserves to be called a language in its own right. (Extreme case (that, I realise, is far past what anyone would call a DSL): Perl, as with many other languages, is written in C, but certainly counts as a separate programming language.)
EDIT, in response to two downvotes: surely it's a legitimate question? I genuinely don't know what it means to say that something isn't unique (except mathematically, that it means that there's more than one of it). Assuming that it means what it seems to mean, how does one draw the line that I mentioned?