Gautam Dey wrote:
> On 9/1/06, James Edward Gray II <james / grayproductions.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Rob Sanheim wrote:
>>
>> > I find it amusing that he says Rails is too risky and new, yadda
>> > yadda, but then he goes on to talk about their in-house language,
>> > "Wasabi":
>>
>> I too found that beyond ironic.
>>
>> James Edward Gray II
>>
>>
> I didn't. Depending on what the language needs to do it, would be easy to
> write a lanuage. From what he wrote, it sounds like wasabi was written to
> his specific domain, and so of course he would trust it more then some 
> other
> general purpose language write by some one else.  Now, I'm not saying that
> other should trust wasabi. I know I would not, but that's just me trusting
> what I know, more then just blanking trusting Jole.
> 


And another point is that quite a few Ruby frameworks do come to 
defining a domain-specific language in Ruby - cf. Og data definition, 
Puppet, rake. There's a (maybe not quite fine) line between a very 
specific framework and a DSL that just gets crossed, and I don't believe 
rubyists are the innocents to throw the first stone.

Then again, if Ruby is to be accused of being too much of an unsafe toy, 
might as well go the full way :)

David Vallner