Re: what is a light-weight language?

[Dan Weinreb <address@hidden>]

   Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 18:51:40 -0500
   From: "Christopher Barber" <cbarber@curl.com>

   I doubt that we will ever come up with a non-fuzzy definition of the term,

I don't think we will ever get a "bright line" definition, i.e. an
algorithm that will unambigously and non-subjectively judge each
language either lightweight or not lightweight.  What I think we could
try for is a set of qualities of which we can say that a language is
more "lightweight" the more it has that quality.  But the qualities
have to be pretty specific rather than vague.

   but I feel that it refers to how much effort it takes to use the language.
   In other words, how much baggage to you have to pick up to do your work in
   that language.

Unfortunately, the word "baggage" there is pretty loaded.  What constitutes
"baggage"?

   Using that sense, features like a REPL or lexical scoping could be factors
   that make a language easier to use.  

You see, someone might point out that lexical scoping, and all its
implications, especially in the presence of upward funargs, is
something that takes time to learn; it takes time to learn the
semantics and their implications.