Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.perl
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!nmtigw!peter
From: peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Metalanguages in environments where code is data.
Message-ID: <id.91JE1.34K@nmti.com>
Followup-To: alt.flame
Sender: peter@nmti.com (peter da silva)
Organization: Network/development platform support, NMTI
References: <394kll$kso@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU> <39dr6b$77q@csnews.cs.colorado.edu> <id.X3GE1.T12@nmti.com> <39jpu1$e9u@loupe.ezsrc.mrg.uswest.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 18:53:30 GMT
Lines: 56
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.misc:18869 gnu.misc.discuss:19499 comp.lang.scheme:11026 comp.lang.tcl:21480 comp.lang.perl:38222

In article <39jpu1$e9u@loupe.ezsrc.mrg.uswest.com>,
chris fedde <chris@loupe.ezsrc.mrg.uswest.com> wrote:
> Quoting Tom Christiansen  <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
> Peter da Silva <peter@nmti.com> writes:
> >> [TCL]'s just not good for large applications.

> >I'm not talking about large applications. I'm talking about extension
> >languages. I wouldn't use "make", "nroff", or HTML for large applications
> >either.

> Are you so blinded by the bright light of declarative semantics
> that you fail to see examples of your own argument?  With the
> possible exception of make the languages you list above have been
> used with great success in the context of moderate to large systems.

I think you're blinded by something, too.

You're extrapolating way beyond anything I intended. Is it so hard to
differentiate between:

	1. Writing a large application (tens of thousands of lines
	   of code) in a programming language.
	2. Using a programming language as part of a large system.
	3. Writing a large collection of small applications in a
	   programming language.
	4. Creating a metalanguage, and writing an application in
	   that.

I'm talking about case 1.

> It is apparent that troff has been used with some success in at
> least one application of moderate size that we are all familiar
> with.

This is a combination of 3 and 4. "-man" is a metalanguage, and each
man page is a standalone "program", with no connection between the
components.

> In the case of HTML, I for one would not want to claim that the
> web is small.

Again, this is case 3.

> In their target domains each of these languages, including make,
> performs admirably "in the large."  I find your comment that they
> are merely "extension languages" that are inappropriate for use in
> contexts of large systems irresponsible.

I can't argue with that, since I didn't say any such thing.

If you want to redirect followups back from alt.flame, drop the flaming, eh?
-- 
Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated                 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd.     Sugar Land, TX  77478  USA
+1 713 274 5180                       "Hast Du heute schon Deinen Wolf umarmt?"
