| ▲ | veqq 10 hours ago |
| > paired with new notation The DSL/language driven approach first creates a notation fitting the problem space directly, then worries about implementing the notation. It's truly empowering. But this is the lisp way. The APL (or Clojure) way is about making your base types truly useful, 100 functions on 1 data structure instead of 10 on 10. So instead of creating a DSL in APL, you design and layout your data very carefully and then everything just falls into place, a bit backwards from the first impression. |
|
| ▲ | xelxebar 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| You stole the words from my mouth! One of the issues DSLs give me is that the process of using them invariably obsoletes their utility. That is, the process of writing an implementation seems to be synonymous with the process of learning what DSL your problem really needs. If you can manage to fluidly update your DSL design along the way, it might work, but in my experience the premature assumptions of initial designs end up getting baked in to so much code that it's really painful to migrate. APL, on the other hand, I have found extremely amenable to updates and rewrites. I mean, even just psychologically, it feels way more sensible to rewrite a couple lines of code versus a couple hundred, and in practice, I find the language to be very amenable for quickly exploring a problem domain with code sketches. |
| |
| ▲ | skydhash 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I was playing with Uiua, a stack and array programming languages. It was amazing to solve the Advent of Code's problems with just a few lines of code. And as GP said. Once you got the right form of array, the handful of functions the standard library was sufficient. | |
| ▲ | marcosdumay 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > One of the issues DSLs give me is that the process of using them invariably obsoletes their utility. That means your DSL is too specific. It should be targeted at the domain, not at the application. But yes, it's very hard to make them general enough to be robust, but specific enough to be productive. It takes a really deep understanding of the domain, but even this is not enough. | | |
| ▲ | xelxebar an hour ago | parent [-] | | Indeed! Another way of putting it is that, in practice, we want the ability to easily iterate and find that perfect DSL, don't you think? IMHO, one big source of technical debt is code relying on some faulty semantics. Maybe initial abstractions baked into the codebase were just not quite right, or maybe the target problem changed under our feet, or maybe the interaction of several independent API boundaries turned out to be messy. What I was trying to get at above is that APL is pretty great for iteratively refining our knowledge of the target domain and producing working code at the same time. It's just that APL works best when reifying that language down into short APL expressions instead of English words. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | smikhanov 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| APL (or Clojure) way is about making your base types truly useful, 100 functions on 1 data structure instead of 10 on 10
If this is indeed this simple and this obvious, why didn't other languages followed this way? |
| |
| ▲ | diggan 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That particular quote is from the "Epigrams on Programming" article by Alan J. Perlis, from 1982. Lots of ideas/"Epigrams" from that list are useful, and many languages have implemented lots of them. But some of them aren't so obvious until you've actually put it into practice. Full list can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/19990117034445/http://www-pu.inf... (the quote in question is item #9) I think most people haven't experienced the whole "100 functions on 1 data structures instead of 10 on 10" thing themselves, so there is no attempts to bring this to other languages, as you're not aware of it to begin with. Then the whole static typing hype (that is the current cycle) makes it kind of difficult because static typing kind of tries to force you into the opposite of "1 function you can only use for whatever type you specify in the parameters", although of course traits/interfaces/whatever-your-language-calls-it helps with this somewhat, even if it's still pretty static. | |
| ▲ | electroly an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "APL is like a diamond. It has a beautiful crystal structure; all of its parts are related in a uniform and elegant way. But if you try to extend this structure in any way - even by adding another diamond - you get an ugly kludge. LISP, on the other hand, is like a ball of mud. You can add any amount of mud to it and it still looks like a ball of mud."
-- https://wiki.c2.com/?JoelMosesOnAplAndLisp | |
| ▲ | marcosdumay 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because it's domain specific. If you push this into every kind of application, you will end-up with people recreating objects with lists of lists, and having good reasons to do so. | |
| ▲ | exe34 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | some of us think in those terms and daily have to fight those who want 20 different objects, each 5-10 deep in inheritance, to achieve the same thing. I wouldn't say 100 functions over one data structure, but e.g. in python I prefer a few data structures like dictionary and array, with 10-30 top level functions that operate over those. if your requirements are fixed, it's easy to go nuts and design all kinds of object hierarchies - but if your requirements change a lot, I find it much easier to stay close to the original structure of the data that lives in the many files, and operate on those structures. |
|
