It's not really about paradigm. You can write in Calculating Language in any paradigm: imperative, logic or functional. As long as resulting function can be used as pure by Managing Language.
The main point is to divide IO and pure calculations into two distinct worlds, different languages.
I see... You mean purpose, a DSL language specially designed for each of those two purposes that you want to define.
I still prefer to have just one multi-paradigm language, with frameworks or libraries for each purpose.
Note that, while you are trying to define "languages" you are specifying responsibilities. That's what one do when dividing the complexity of the system (given by its requirements) into components.
Object Oriented Programming and other paradigms make profit of the fact that the complexity can be divided in simpler components until a level that a programmer or team can better understand and manage.
Nevertheless, the complexity of system can be divided but never avoid it. The complexity is moved to the relationship between the components.
That means, that you can have languages such specific like DSLs, but at the end you'll need a technology / language to bind them.
That's why I prefer having a super language with frameworks or libraries to many specific ones. Even more, when the paradigm is constantly evolving.
It is not only to have a language to implement the paradigms, we need it also for the glue that connects them.
Nevertheless, I guess that when frameworks are mature enough they might profit to have a DSL language representation. They would play the role of standarization with other companies.
"The really frightening thing about totalitarianism is not that it commits 'atrocities' but that it attacks the concept of objective truth; it claims to control the past as well as the future."
That means, that you can have languages such specific like DSLs, but at the end you'll need a technology / language to bind them.
That's why I prefer having a super language with frameworks or libraries to many specific ones. Even more, when the paradigm is constantly evolving.
There must be a clear interface between those DSLs, yes.
If we create these DSLs inside super language, then there is a great
temptation of changing this inter-language interface. It also ties code to a single platform (a super language).
I would prefer to have clear interface that can be used on many platforms. Interface that is not changed easily, so people don't have to afraid that it's gonna break. Similar to C FFI that is used in many PL for library interfacing.
That's why I don't like this idea of super language.
I see... You mean purpose, a DSL language specially designed for each of those two purposes that you want to define.
I still prefer to have just one multi-paradigm language, with frameworks or libraries for each purpose.
Note that, while you are trying to define "languages" you are specifying responsibilities. That's what one do when dividing the complexity of the system (given by its requirements) into components.
Object Oriented Programming and other paradigms make profit of the fact that the complexity can be divided in simpler components until a level that a programmer or team can better understand and manage.
Nevertheless, the complexity of system can be divided but never avoid it. The complexity is moved to the relationship between the components.
That means, that you can have languages such specific like DSLs, but at the end you'll need a technology / language to bind them.
That's why I prefer having a super language with frameworks or libraries to many specific ones. Even more, when the paradigm is constantly evolving.
It is not only to have a language to implement the paradigms, we need it also for the glue that connects them.
Nevertheless, I guess that when frameworks are mature enough they might profit to have a DSL language representation. They would play the role of standarization with other companies.
There must be a clear interface between those DSLs, yes.
If we create these DSLs inside super language, then there is a great
temptation of changing this inter-language interface. It also ties code to a single platform (a super language).
I would prefer to have clear interface that can be used on many platforms. Interface that is not changed easily, so people don't have to afraid that it's gonna break. Similar to C FFI that is used in many PL for library interfacing.
That's why I don't like this idea of super language.
Anyway, you might want to check Scala's DSL features.