Re: Object-relational impedence

On 2008-03-05, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:22:24 +0000, Eric wrote:
>
>> If you should not use multiple languages, there must be a universal
>> language.
>
> Yep, it is called a universal/general purpose programming language.
>
>> What is it, is it really universal _right now_, and if not,
>
> It is, there exist many of them.

So any general purpose language will do, as long as I use only that? Do I have to use the same one for the next task?

>
> The mistake you make is in a wrong presumption that "universal purpose" <=>
> "best possible."
>

I presume no such thing.

Any program can be written in any language, but particular combinations may be unwise. Why should I not choose the most appropriate language of those that are currently available to me?

If I bring in an existing API to do some part of the task, why should I care what it is written in as long as I can call it? If it would help me to create an additional abstraction layer (i.e. my own API), why should I not use the most appropriate tool for it? What language do you use, and what is your math library written in?

>> when will it be and what should we do in the meantime?
>
> Not to develop pet domain-specific languages if the advantages of those are
> unclear. If you, say, wanted to create a declarative language based on
> inference, then that should be a universal purpose one.
>

An API, or an abstraction layer, _is_ a domain-specific language. If it can be made easier to use by bolting a parser on to the front of it, why not do that?

E Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 15:30:56 CET