Domain-Specific Languages vs. Notation

Re:Domain-Specific Languages vs. Notation by chrisseaton on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @11:09AM (#9570622)

I still don't get what 'reads like its own language' really means though. Rake is still Ruby syntax and semantics. Rake just adds new methods - they're still Ruby methods and calling them reads like any other Ruby method using the same parsing rules.

I'm playing the fool here - I do know what an internal DSL is but I think the term is entirely meaningless when you really think about it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Domain-Specific Languages vs. Notation by drakecoffeecake on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @02:55PM (#9572278)

Lisps let you define the semantics and syntax of a form with macros. I would consider the loop macro in CL to have an internal DSL.

--edited

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Domain-Specific Languages vs. Notation by draegtun on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @12:42PM (#9577519)

And another example of this, but not using macros, would be Rebol's parse which is a top-down parsing dialect (internal DSL) within Rebol.

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebol#parse

[ Parent | on HN ]