7 ms·

> DSL that is json/yaml helps a ton it definitely does, and i would say json/yaml is not a dsl. this example of json/yaml keeps coming in the form of "DSL". i

> DSL that is json/yaml helps a ton it definitely does, and i would say json/yaml is not a dsl. this example of json/yaml keeps coming in the form of "DSL". i would say your configuration is not a dsl, it a declaration. llms are better at declarative stuff ? maybe but there are hardly that many of complex declarative frameworks. PlantUML is a real dsl. not just declarative yaml.

billyp-rva 2mo ago
> and i would say json/yaml is not a dsl But you can have DSLs that are json/yaml, is my point. > PlantUML is a real dsl. PlantUML is a DSL that isn't json/yaml. That doesn't make it better, and you can make the argument that it is worse because the tooling around it won't be as good.
- jazzypants 2mo ago
  That's not a domain-specific language. You can use JSON and YAML in other domains. A DSL is defined by its syntax.
- codegladiator 2mo ago
  > you can have DSLs that are json/yaml, is my point i disagree on the semantics of "DSL" vs "config in json". these are different. and anyways both of them just pretend to be "reliable" by throwing the responsibility to an upper layer of validator/compiler/interpreter > it is worse because the tooling around it won't be as good plantuml is good because of the the tooling around it. not sure if we are agreeing/disagreeing there, confused by the wording
cestith 2mo ago
I would say any JSON or YAML that carries semantics with the syntax is a language. It may be a configuration language rather than a programming language, but it’s a language rather than just generic data for some program to slurp.
- codegladiator 2mo ago
  > any JSON or YAML that carries semantics with the syntax is a language semantics are defined by the converter/compiler/interpreter, and that is the process which is going to consume the said json/yaml. if the json/yaml is going to be consumed by any process then the semantics are inherently defined, so by your definition all jsons/yamls are in their own a "language" (or they are not being consumed at all), which just defeats the purpose of calling it a language at that point.
  - cestith 2mo ago
    At that point you can say C has no semantics, because the compiler defines them.
    - codegladiator 2mo ago
      yeah and so llm cannot write C reliably

billyp-rva 2mo ago

> and i would say json/yaml is not a dsl But you can have DSLs that are json/yaml, is my point. > PlantUML is a real dsl. PlantUML is a DSL that isn't json/yaml. That doesn't make it better, and you can make the argument that it is worse because the tooling around it won't be as good.

jazzypants 2mo ago
That's not a domain-specific language. You can use JSON and YAML in other domains. A DSL is defined by its syntax.
codegladiator 2mo ago
> you can have DSLs that are json/yaml, is my point i disagree on the semantics of "DSL" vs "config in json". these are different. and anyways both of them just pretend to be "reliable" by throwing the responsibility to an upper layer of validator/compiler/interpreter > it is worse because the tooling around it won't be as good plantuml is good because of the the tooling around it. not sure if we are agreeing/disagreeing there, confused by the wording

cestith 2mo ago

I would say any JSON or YAML that carries semantics with the syntax is a language. It may be a configuration language rather than a programming language, but it’s a language rather than just generic data for some program to slurp.

codegladiator 2mo ago
> any JSON or YAML that carries semantics with the syntax is a language semantics are defined by the converter/compiler/interpreter, and that is the process which is going to consume the said json/yaml. if the json/yaml is going to be consumed by any process then the semantics are inherently defined, so by your definition all jsons/yamls are in their own a "language" (or they are not being consumed at all), which just defeats the purpose of calling it a language at that point.
- cestith 2mo ago
  At that point you can say C has no semantics, because the compiler defines them.
  - codegladiator 2mo ago
    yeah and so llm cannot write C reliably