OK. I mostly agree. But at some point, there might be an unresolveable ambiguity in the kernel, at which point I would be forced to allow pluralism. That's why I allow pluaralism from the start... to avoid having to change my mind later. 8^) I think it's easier to go from many to one than it is from one to many.
On 06/23/2017 12:25 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I'd make a distinction between embedded DSLs (built on general-purpose > programming languages) and DSLs which are not. I don't want to get stuck > thinking about only those things where the language is established and works > well. I want to be able to step away from it and change it when it doesn't > work. If language L' does something useful L doesn't, then I want to use > its utility to drag the community along to my way of thinking. DSLs lead to > rule by committee and stagnation. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
