From: Chad Perrin <code@...>
Date: 2010-12-05T13:06:26+09:00
Subject: Re: Domain Specifc Languages

--uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 07:25:14AM +0900, Mike Stephens wrote:
> Ryan Davis wrote in post #966039:
> >
> > What does this have to do with the "ORM's Don't Do It" thread?
> >
> > Don't thread hijack. Man up and hit "new message".
>=20
> This is to do with a current trend - domain specific languages.
>=20
> You can try and write applications in a single language. ORMs try and
> make relational databases look like Ruby.
>=20
> The alternate view is to say an application should use a set of
> different languages each optimal for the task at hand.

A DSL *is* a different language.  That's sorta the point.

If anything, it's people who insist that SQL, and *only* SQL, should be
used for DB access that have a hang-up about using different languages
for different tasks.  A database ORM provides a DSL that specifically
deals with a particular set of conditions at the point where Ruby and SQL
intersect.  It is, in short, an attempt to make a "best tool for the job"
rather than rely on trying to get two different tools, each specific to
opposite ends of a spectrum, to mix together without making your life
suck.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkz7DhIACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKVEAwCfek/jPD+JXQITNwvZXMvIiltB
v+cAn1bCm0qJfsBFIzJldiotKZomVn4S
=KugA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm--