[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Axiom-developer] Lisp

From: Bill Page
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Lisp
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:41:07 -0500


Did you actually read this article? In fact the article contains the
specific reason why you should *not* be converting BOOT code to Lisp:
(my emphasis ** ** below):



Domain Specific Languages

In this article we've already encountered two domain specific
languages: Ant (specific to dealing with project builds) and our
unnamed mini-language for dealing with to-do lists. The difference is
that Ant was written from scratch using XML, an XML parser, and Java
while our language is embedded into Lisp and is easily created within
a couple of minutes.

We've already discussed the benefits of DSLs, mainly why Ant is using
XML, not Java source code. **Lisp lets us create as many DSLs as we
need for our problem.** We can create domain specific languages for
creating web applications, writing massively multiplayer games, doing
fixed income trading, solving the protein folding problem, dealing
with transactions, etc. We can layer these languages on top of each
other and create a language for writing web-based trading applications
by taking advantage of our web application language and bond trading
language. Every day we'd reap the benefits of this approach, much like
we reap the benefits of Ant.

Using DSLs to solve problems results in much more compact,
maintainable, flexible programs. In a way we create them in Java by
creating classes that help us solve the problem. The difference is
that Lisp allows us to take this abstraction to the next level: we're
not limited by Java's parser. Think of writing build scripts in Java
itself using some supporting library. Compare it to using Ant. Now
apply this same comparison to every single problem you've ever worked
on and you'll begin to glimpse a small share of the benefits offered
by Lisp.


BOOT is just another DSL. Writing Axiom internals in BOOT does not
mean that we are no longer use Lisp, rather it means we are simply
using Lisp in the way it was intended to be used.

Bill Page.

On 3/3/08, address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'd encourage you to spend a few minutes reading
>  It is a gentle introduction to the reason why I'm moving
>  all of the internal code to common lisp.
>  Tim

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]