Is there anything in .NET that allows me to define a grammar and generate a programming language?
I have a course in which the proffesor has asked us to create a DSL for a our final project. He presented us in the first courses xText with Eclipse. This being a new course, I am still a bit fuzzy on what Domain Specific Languages means.
Debugging framework for domain specific language
I want to know if there are any tools/tool-kits which aid in building
source level debuggers for domain specific languages ?
(I work on a proprietary DSL, which doesn’t have any tools
and sometimes debugging will become difficult, so, if in case
there are any such tool-kits, wanted to try)
Domain-specific language for text search/processing?
I work for an organization that does a lot of work with government data. We have a couple of different projects where we’ve abstracted out common text search/manipulation operations into reusable libraries, for things like standardizing the way politicians’ names are displayed (e.g., transforming “MCDONALD, BOB (R-VA)” into “Bob McDonald (R-VA)”), or finding legal citations in text (e.g., finding a reference to (e.g., finding occurrences of things like “1 U.S.C. 7” in text, determining that it’s a US Code citation, and returning a structure that says it’s referring to section 1 of title 7). These are relatively simple operations, and lots of collaborators in our space would like to use them, but we end up having to pick a language in which to implement each (the former is in Python; the latter, Javascript), and we freeze out potential consumers/contributors who work in different languages and don’t want to resort to hacks like shelling out to a node process to handle their text. This all seems like a shame because what we’re expressing is so simple, and ought, one would think, to be pretty easy to share.
Does domain specific languages use other programming languages? [duplicate]
This question already has answers here: Building a DSL: Scripted atop a general-purpose language or stand-alone? (5 answers) Closed 11 years ago. Does a domain specific language use other languages like c++ or java, or is it standalone? dsl 2 Yes, DSLs are often implemented using other languages. Tcl, ruby, groovy, and many others are […]
Is this mini-DSL for hiding URI passwords compatible with the URI spec?
Passwords exposed in URIs An application stores URIs to be used for file transfers via SFTP, FTP, FTPS and SCP. Many of these URIs contain passwords, for example: sftp://someuser:[email protected]/ These URIs are visible to too many people. We cannot hide email addresses from these people. A mini-language to get passwords out of URIs Using a […]
What is the “Free Monad + Interpreter” pattern?
I’ve seen people talking about Free Monad with Interpreter, particularly in the context of data-access. What is this pattern? When might I want to use it? How does it work, and how would I implement it?
Learning to write DSLs utilities for unit tests and am worried about extensablity
I’m trying to simplify our unit tests with hand written DSL’s. So far I have DSL’s that walk developers through processing a service after setting up all preconditions and the construction of an monster object that has a huge constructor and setters that conflict. The monster is one of the many preconditions of processing the service and they constructed by hand over and over as developers write unit tests for new services in our system. So it would be worth putting considerable effort into making constructing them easier. I’m tried of watching people copy and paste the “life support system” from unit test to unit test.
How far to go when future proofing fluent-method-chained-DSL test code?
Is it worth implementing interfaces, or using the getThis()
trick, or even static factory methods to future proof against the need to extend this DSL?
How far to go when future proofing fluent-method-chained-DSL test code?
Is it worth implementing interfaces, or using the getThis()
trick, or even static factory methods to future proof against the need to extend this DSL?
Do thin fluent builder method chains have any need to be “extensible”?
In an environment where refactoring is difficult extensibility can be a life saver. However, this is no excuse to over engineer code.