Kim-Eeh, Tillmann, I am interested in the definition of deep vs shallow embedded, even if it is not featured in the Fowler textbook. Fowler that is one textbook "only" and I am not focused on it.
--Joerg On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:59 AM, Kim-Ee Yeoh wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Tillmann Rendel > <ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de> wrote: > I mean internal == embedded, independently of deep vs. shallow, following > Martin Fowler [1]. > [1] http://martinfowler.com/bliki/DomainSpecificLanguage.html > > If I look here [2] I see: > > "An internal DSL is just a particular idiom of writing code in the host > language. So a Ruby internal DSL is Ruby code, just written in particular > style which gives a more language-like feel. As such they are often called > Fluent Interfaces orEmbedded DSLs. An external DSL is a completely separate > language that is parsed into data that the host language can understand." > > Fowler places undue emphasis on the "completely separate language", but other > than that, the correspondence is clear. I wonder how he thinks about C > implementing C? Or ghc implementing haskell in haskell? Would he say, "Well, > clearly C and haskell are not DSLs, they are general purpose languages!"? > > [2] http://martinfowler.com/bliki/DslQandA.html > > -- Kim-Ee > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
