[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 <email@example.com>
> 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
> 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.