Talk:Sinatra (software)

Can someone explain me why it is said that Sinatra is a domain-specific language? I know that's what is claimed by the developers^[1], but it is nonetheless wrong. Even if it looks like a DSL thanks to the permissive syntax of Ruby, it is just a Ruby library. When you use Sinatra, you write your code in Ruby. It uses the Ruby interpreter. It is just a Rack application. It is NOT a language on its own. It is as powerful and as generalist as Ruby is. Because it IS Ruby. And Ruby is not a DSL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingbee (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources disagree with you, e.g.:

• http://webapps-for-beginners.rubymonstas.org/sinatra/dsl.html
• http://rubylearning.com/blog/2010/11/30/how-do-i-build-dsls-with-yield-and-instance_eval/
• https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/sinatra-up-and/9781449306847/ch01.html

Samsara 00:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I know those sources. But here is an other source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-specific_language "A domain-specific language (DSL) is a computer language specialized to a particular application domain". The definition is simple, a DSL has to be two things:

• A computer language
• Specialized to a particular application domain

So you'r right, Sinatra is specialized to a particular application domain, but it is not a language.

For example: Is writing a Ruby program by restraining yourself to arithmetic expressions is the same as writing in a new DSL? A DSL specialized to arithmetic computation? Maybe. Is a subset of a language, a new language on itself? Maybe. Just as you could argue that C is a subset of C++. Right.

But it is not the case with Sinatra. Sinatra is not a subset of Ruby. All the features of Ruby and the full expressivity of Ruby may be required to write a Sinatra application. Sinatra is a Ruby library that gives access to a set of functionalities. Those functionality are accessed via some methods that, thanks to the Ruby syntax, can be called in a nice pretty way, giving the illusion that you are using an other language. The nature of Sinatra, the fact that the same methods are called again and again through the entire program reinforce this illusion. But only for small and basic applications, where no other Ruby functionalities are required.

As a final example, is the following program a Sinatra program?

#!/usr/bin/env ruby
require 'sinatra'
Sinatra = Kernel

Sinatra.get('/', Proc.new{Sinatra.redirect.to('/hello/World')})
Sinatra.get('/hello/:name', Proc.new{"Hello #{params[:name]}!"})

It does not follows the Sinatra "syntax". But it works the same. This has the same semantics as the example given on the main page. Jingbee (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, I should point out the last sentence given by one of your sources: "As you can see this code uses a “language” (i.e. methods provided by Sinatra) that is specific to the domain HTTP."^[2] All libraries are providing methods, and all libraries are specific to a domain. This is the purpose of a library. Does that mean that all libraries are in fact languages? No, I think there is a real amalgam between the notion of vocabulary (the methods) and the grammar (the language). Jingbee (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a common misconception that Wikipedia reports The Truth. It does not. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. And if such reliable sources agree that Sinatra is a DSL, it doesn't matter that you or I think it's wrong. Wikipedia will still record that it is a DSL because that's what the sources said. Reading that is usually recommended includes WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NOT, among others. Samsara 17:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

So, what if we have multiple conflicting sources? Here, the sources on the definition of DSL and some sources on Sinatra? Thibm (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks says that Sinatra is a MVC framework. Should that be fixed there? Klimov (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This article does a very poor job at explaining what Sinatra provides. It only says what it is not ("It does not follow the typical model–view–controller pattern"). The example code, which is not followed by any explanation, is not helpful at all. AmirOnWiki (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm feeling very honored, I've got nothing to do with napalm. Reference 56 links to https://github.com/brejoc/napalm, which was just a fork of the original repository. Unfortunately the original repository does not exist anymore: https://github.com/jacek99/Napalm

Even though there seems to be no other fork I'd like to delete this repository in the near future. Could someone please link some other repo or just delete the link and drop me a note? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.88.218.128 (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)