[stringtemplate-interest] ST Half-in or All-in? Pragmatism & Portability.

[Joseph Grace]

*Zenaan Harkness* wrote on *Tue Oct 20 20:43:54 PDT 2009:**

> It's looking a little lisp like. What I'm thinking is that if any
> data processing (DP) is required to reduce the data to a point where
> sensible boolean values can be obtained, then that DP should be kept
> separate, completely separate, from the conditional test facility.
>
> Functional orthogonality may look more verbose, but conceptually it
> is much cleaner.

Double ack.

To answer your follow-up question about languages. I like lisp and agree its
powerful. However, I think it would be jumping the gun to select a DP (Data
Processing) language before having libraries written to use it. Also, I
think it would be cumbersome to require another language as a sidecar to ST.
The "ST host" language is an exception, because presumably that's already
the user's choice. So I would like to keep any sidecar libraries implemented
in the "ST host" languages.

Any portable DP library would then port to all the various "ST host"
languages by the various "ST host" maintainers. For now, that's not an issue
since there's no library! I'd suggest just reserving "st.*" for "Future Use"
in case ST eventually adopted some of the DP tooling from independent users.
A DP stdlib for ST for common DP portable tooling common in ST applications.

= Joe =

*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.antlr.org/pipermail/stringtemplate-interest/attachments/20091021/fbc51f95/attachment.html