Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- From: Bil Kleb <Bil.Kleb@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:12:33 -0400
Gary Scott wrote:
Looks like everything we knew is now obsolete...
Not obsolete, just at the bottom of the stack...
ThoughtWorks colleague Ola Bini envisions a future stack of basic programming tools consisting of a "stable language" at the bottom level, with dynamic languages built on top of that, and DSLs added at the top layer.
as found via a Twitter stream:
http://static.raibledesigns.com/repository/images/olas-layers.png
See also ThoughtWork's DSL podcasts:
http://www.thoughtworks.com/what-we-say/podcasts.html
and FWIW, my foray with external DSLs,
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070027745_2007026087.pdf
aka, Blurring the Inputs: A Natural Language Approach
to Sensitivity Analysis.
Regards,
--
Bil Kleb
http://nasarb.rubyforge.org
.
- References:
- F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- From: Simulate
- Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- From: Arjen Markus
- Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- From: Simulate
- Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- From: Gary Scott
- F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- Prev by Date: Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- Next by Date: Re: Rounding off double precision
- Previous by thread: Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- Next by thread: Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|