From: Kiuhnm <"kiuhnm03["@]yahoo.it>
Date: 2006-12-21T02:10:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Language

Uma Geller wrote:
> hmmmmmm, how about having a look at some Ruby-based DSLs then ?

No, I always go to the source.

> Looking at the Ruby spec for devising a DSL seems to me like studying
> the blueprints for a car design, instead of test-driving it or having
> a look underneath the car hood.

A DSL is not necessarily a limited language that you obtain by crippling 
another language and adding a few keywords. I don't like X-based 
language. Many general purpose languages were born as DSLs.
I am interested in the ideas behind the languages, not in the languages 
themselves. While many programming books are imprecise, wordy and 
boring, a specification is concise and to the point.
I think a programming book is just a book intended to make an argument 
more accessible. The problem is that when you become accustomed to 
reading very terse books, you cannot read anything else.
Anyway I'll begin with the PickAxe.

Kiuhnm