the madlib metaphor/concept also conjures up Chomsky’s arguments, where you can have a grammatically, i.e. syntactically, correct sentence that doesn’t make any sense semantically, as in the [famous](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously) “colorless green ideas sleep furiously”, and from Lewis Carroll’s [jabberrwocky](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabberwocky) - “twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe”. these sentences are grammatical, as all of the necessary syntactic slots are filled with grammatically appropriate lexical items, but are ‘buggy’ in these sense that they’re filled with semantically infelicitous lexical items. i don’t know much about frameworks, but this seems similar to unification based grammars, such as construction grammar, where, in order for sentences to ‘work’, they have to unify both lexically (‘type of food’), and semantically (“commonly eaten by humans”), to avoid the utterance being semantic gibberish.
This is interesting because there may be a way to use the formalisms
already created in linguistics to explain or specify frameworks. It’s
also good because it reminds me of a problem with frameworks in that
they have deeper semantics than the OO language syntax expresses. For
example, a framework superclass callback method “aMethod(int x)” could
mean any of the following to the framework plugin:
subscribe via RSS