On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Nick Shelley <nickmshel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since I'm not very experienced in this at all, I thought I'd ask the list > what definition of DSL is most correct and adopt that one. Any thoughts will > be appreciated.
It depends who is defining it. Java doesn't have rich syntactic extension abilities, so you end up realizing a DSL tailored to the problem at hand entirely within the limitation of the language; basically you end up doing well-known object-oriented patterns. For me, this is a DSL, using the machinery available, for that client. It is a solution in the language of the client. Most Java people would say no that isn't a DSL, you gotta use Antlr and code-generation to do a DSL, so well perhaps they are correct too, they view DSLs realizing syntax not achievable in the host language. By both of those definitions, are free to realize a DSL as you wish in Racket, there are no restrictions, it is just built in, add syntax, use objects, use functions, realize a DSL however you wish. Surely by someone else's definition, mine is wrong here, too. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
