On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:05:03AM +0900, Charles Hoffman wrote:
> 
> Hmmm... I had rather thought that functional-style languages were more
> common for writing language interpreters/compilers in.  Aren't Lisp guys
> always on about using Lisp to write another language more specific to
> the problem domain, and working from there?

Err . . . not exactly.  It's more like in Lisp you create a
domain-specific "jargon" that allows you to abstract the problem further
according to the needs of the moment -- like using a particularly long
lever to gain the ability to move larger things with less "heavy
lifting" power provided by you, the programmer.

As one uses a higher-level programming language rather than moving bits
around one at a time with a pair of tweezers when one wants to (for
instance) edit some text, so one uses Lisp to create domain-specific
syntaxes for further abstracting things so that not even the extra work
of using that "higher-level" programming language is necessary.  At
least, that's my understanding: it's not about literally writing a
compiler for a language, then writing programs in that language.

I could be wrong, though.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.