On 18 Jan, 2011, at 15:34 , Tim Daly wrote: >> I suppose that for most Lispers, Clojure's namespaces are a sufficient >> answer. Just make a namespace for your DSL where you put all the stuff that >> is part of it. Sure, you can always get at the rest of Clojure by importing >> other namespaces and/or using qualified symbols. But you would do that only >> intentionally, not by accident. > > Well you could use scalac and dynamically load the class. > Or, since it is Java, just create a classloader and load anything.
My understanding of the article is that the DSLs are compiled to something that may or may not be JVM bytecode (one example compiles to C++) and that the DSL code doesn't "know" that its compiler is written in Scala. A programmer who does know may resort to tricks such as you describe, but it is a lot straightforward than accessing clojure.core in Clojure. > Safety, in my interpretation, means not using anything but the > domain-specific language for portability. That won't stop people Personally I fully agree. I just wonder if everyone else does. > I do think that the idea of defining problems in terms of a DSL is > certainly an interesting design approach. It might be useful to have > some Clojure examples of such designs so we can ensure that > DSLs are easily created. One really useful example might be to > create Scala in macros :-) I'd go for Fortran ;-) Konrad. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
