Skip to main content

DSL in review

UPDATE:  My initial notes have been erased by the ether. It seems that my iOS blogger app ate my homework. So here is the summary.

Last week I was asked the question "why is flowstaller implemented as a DSL or DSL-like instead of implementing the tasks as first class functions" in the language of choice? At the time I was exhausted and not able to give put together a strong argument, however, after reading an article today I found the voice I was looking for.

The article I read made the argument that the author had built a DSL and refined it until it was no longer capable of completing the task for which it was designed. I also read Stack Overflow question/answer... the question was whether or not a physics researcher should implement the research questions in a DSL or in a first class language?

While the first problem is a challenge it's not impossible. Usually it means one of two things.  (a) the DSL was not thought out well enough in advance to account for the major constructs (b) the expectations are too high and some intermediate middle ground is missing. There is a third; the developer has simply lost interest because now there is some impedance mismatch like callstacks, looping, or conditionals that are just no fun to implement.

As for the second; this reminded me why I wanted a DSL for my project in the first place. In my case I was interested in merging DSLs from Chef, Puppet, Ansible, and SaltStack. So on the one hand I needed a DSL engine and on the other I needed the libraries to execute the tasks across all of the DSLs. However, I was reminded that the physics problem was the same and yet different. By starting the researchers with a DSL they are immediately productive. Then, over time, as they learn the DSL and possibly one or more of the underlying programming languages then converting their DSL-based applications to a first-class language should be a simple matter.

So contrary to my previous posts there is a place for a DSL in today's modern development environments.


Popular posts from this blog

Entry level cost for CoreOS+Tectonic

CoreOS and Tectonic start their pricing at 10 servers. Managed CoreOS starts at $1000 per month for those first 10 servers and Tectonic is $5000 for the same 10 servers. Annualized that is $85K or at least one employee depending on your market. As a single employee company I'd rather hire the employee. Specially since I only have 3 servers.

The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL

If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.

UPDATE 2017-10-30: With gratitude the CoreOS team has provided updated information on their pricing, however, I stand by my conclusion that the effective cost is lower when you deploy monster machines. The cost per node of my 1 CPU Intel NUC is the same as a 96 CPU server when you get beyond 10 nodes. I'll also reiterate that while my pricing notes are not currently…

eGalax touch on default Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS

I have not had success with the touch drivers as yet.  The touch works and evtest also seems to report events, however, I have noticed that the button click is not working and no matter what I do xinput refuses to configure the buttons correctly.  When I downgraded to ubuntu 10.04 LTS everything sort of worked... there must have been something in the kermel as 10.04 was in the 2.6 kernel and 4.04 is in the 3.x branch.

One thing ... all of the documentation pointed to the wrong website or one in Taiwanese. I was finally able to locate the drivers again: (it would have been nice if they provided the install instructions in text rather than PDF)
Please open the document "EETI_eGTouch_Programming_Guide" under the Guide directory, and follow the Guidline to install driver.
download the appropriate versionunzip the fileread the programming manual And from that I'm distilling to the following: execute the answer all of the questio…

Prometheus vs Bosun

In conclusion... while Bosun(B) is still not the ideal monitoring system neither is Prometheus(P).


I am running Bosun in a Docker container hosted on CoreOS. Fleet service/unit files keep it running. However in once case I have experienced at least one severe crash as a result of a disk full condition. That it is implemented as part golang, java and python is an annoyance. The MIT license is about the only good thing.

I am trying to integrate Prometheus into my pipeline but losing steam fast. The Prometheus design seems to desire that you integrate your own cache inside your application and then allow the server to scrape the data, however, if the interval between scrapes is shorter than the longest transient session of your application then you need a gateway. A place to shuttle your data that will be a little more persistent.

(1) storing the data in my application might get me started more quickly
(2) getting the server to pull the data might be more secure
(3) using a push g…