From: Alex Young Date: 2006-09-04T01:40:35+09:00 Subject: Re: Joel Spolsky on languages for web programming David Vallner wrote: > Gautam Dey wrote: >> On 9/1/06, James Edward Gray II wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Rob Sanheim wrote: >>> >>> > I find it amusing that he says Rails is too risky and new, yadda >>> > yadda, but then he goes on to talk about their in-house language, >>> > "Wasabi": >>> >>> I too found that beyond ironic. >>> >>> James Edward Gray II >>> >>> >> I didn't. Depending on what the language needs to do it, would be easy to >> write a lanuage. From what he wrote, it sounds like wasabi was written to >> his specific domain, and so of course he would trust it more then some >> other >> general purpose language write by some one else. Now, I'm not saying >> that >> other should trust wasabi. I know I would not, but that's just me >> trusting >> what I know, more then just blanking trusting Jole. >> > > > And another point is that quite a few Ruby frameworks do come to > defining a domain-specific language in Ruby - cf. Og data definition, > Puppet, rake. There's a (maybe not quite fine) line between a very > specific framework and a DSL that just gets crossed, and I don't believe > rubyists are the innocents to throw the first stone. That's not quite the same - those DSL's build upon a known and well understood foundation, because they use Ruby's syntax to their own ends. I'm inferring from the very little information that's out there that Wasabi has its own parser, and that makes it a very, very different beast to a DSL in the sense that I've come across the term in Ruby. -- Alex