> 3. The documentation is the compiler. So... no documentation.
I don't understand this one. Shouldn't small compilers for small languages be excellent documentation? I can't really ground the point or my response, but it seems that clever tooling should be able to analyze the compiler to create good documentation. Information could include type annotation, a timeline of the creation of features of the DSL or any other number of things that could be kept during the creation of the compiler.
> Sounds like you took the long way to implementing a library
DSLs aren't Libraries. When would you want one over the other?
The Racket languages I've seen have impressed me with their simplicity and focused scope, I would never think the same of C with includes or js with requires. The point is to be writing a file which is perfectly scoped to the issue, right? I imagine it would suck to "write" html if it were a library in C, rather than a file format with all the benefits that comes from being its own thing.
I don't understand this one. Shouldn't small compilers for small languages be excellent documentation? I can't really ground the point or my response, but it seems that clever tooling should be able to analyze the compiler to create good documentation. Information could include type annotation, a timeline of the creation of features of the DSL or any other number of things that could be kept during the creation of the compiler.
> Sounds like you took the long way to implementing a library
DSLs aren't Libraries. When would you want one over the other? The Racket languages I've seen have impressed me with their simplicity and focused scope, I would never think the same of C with includes or js with requires. The point is to be writing a file which is perfectly scoped to the issue, right? I imagine it would suck to "write" html if it were a library in C, rather than a file format with all the benefits that comes from being its own thing.