undefined | Better HN

0 pointsembedding-shape1mo ago0 comments

Yes, maybe that's the sort of DSL you're talking about, the other person mentioned "Clojure style discourages building DSLs" which I'm fairly sure to be about the other DSL and is also true, hence the whole "you're talking/reading past each other".

0 comments

midnight_eclair1mo ago

that doesn't make sense, why would they be talking about departure from traditional lisps if they weren't talking about macro-based DSLs?

embedding-shapeOP1mo ago

> Clojure style discourages building DSLs and the like and prefers to remain close to Clojure types and constructs

This to me, seems to indicate they're talking about "DSLs not built with Clojure types and constructs", I'm just trying to have the most charitable reading of what people write and help you understand why it seems you're not actually disagreeing, just talking about different things.

midnight_eclair1mo ago

> DSLs not built with Clojure types and constructs

and in context of lisps that still most likely means macro-based DSLs using traditional lisp constructs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

midnight_eclair1mo ago

that doesn't make sense, why would they be talking about departure from traditional lisps if they weren't talking about macro-based DSLs?

embedding-shapeOP1mo ago

> Clojure style discourages building DSLs and the like and prefers to remain close to Clojure types and constructs

midnight_eclair1mo ago

> DSLs not built with Clojure types and constructs

and in context of lisps that still most likely means macro-based DSLs using traditional lisp constructs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse