On 7/15/11 7:58 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-07-15 00:06, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/14/11 3:09 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-07-14 08:56, Russel Winder wrote:
Nick,
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 17:41 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[ . . . ]
Yea, D is likely to be a little more verbose than what could be done
in Ruby
(or Python). Personally, I think that's well worth it, though. I
don't know
how many others would agree or not.
[ . . . ]
You might want to take a quick look at SBT -- the standard Scala build
framework. It's advocates started it because Ant and Maven are XML hell
and are generally problematic, and Gradle is build on Java and Groovy,
and (as you might expect) Scala folk abhor all things dynamic (i.e.
Groovy) and insist on static type checking. I have some doubts about
the huge downloads they dump into each project hierarchy, but there is
no doubt that they have made excellent use of a statically type
language
to create a DSL for building Scala things.
If D can be used to go down this sort of road, and if it can support
the
build and install facilities of SCons and Waf, then it could be a
winner.
Scala have a lot of features making a DSL looking a lot better than one
written in D.
Does it have something akin to string mixins?
Andrei
I'm not very familiar with Scala but I found this:
http://blog.darevay.com/2009/01/remedial-scala-interpreting-scala-from-scala/
Interesting. What are the features that do make a DSL better looking in
Scala than in D?
Thanks,
Andrei
