[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Var-free programming (slightly off-topic)

I would say that a lightweight language is one optimized for quickie
programming rather than for maintenance or management.

As a result, lightweight languages typically:
1. avoid separate compilation step
2. avoid explicit type declarations
3. simplify access to existing libs, shells, and applications webserver.
4. specialize for a particular class of tasks/applications

They grow because people want the same rapid development with
larger applications or a larger class of applications.

They are considered to be lightweight by people loyal to
heavyweight (industrial strength) languages.


S. Alexander Jacobson			i2x Media
1-917-783-0889 voice			1-212-697-1427 fax

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Dan Weinreb wrote:

>    Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:52:29 -0500 (EST)
>    From: Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk@cs.brown.edu>
>    Lightweight languages rule.
> So, the big question that didn't actually get addressed at the LL
> conference: what is the criterion (or what are the criteria) for
> distinguishing between a "lightweight" language and other kinds of
> languages?
> The one thing that's clear is that lightweight languages are good and
> non-lightweight languages are bad.  Maybe that's the definition? :-)
> It's not clear to me that "having a read-eval-print loop" has
> something to do with the "weight" of a language.  Or that having
> lexical scoping is a "weight" thing.  I'm also not sure whether
> "weight" is more a property of the language definition in the abstract
> as opposed to a property of a particular implementation.