

Why all the fuss with DSLs? Isn't it just "metalinguistic abstraction" as described in the SICP?  - michaelneale
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-25.html#%_chap_4
The current "fashions" around DSLs I find a little annoying, it seems like the idea has been around and in use for some time, as this shows. Is there something new and profound? It seems that DSLs taken out of the context of lisp are much much less powerful.<p>Its a good technique, "language oriented programming" it may be marketed as in a parallel universe. 
======
mechanical_fish
"Classic: a book which people praise and don't read."

<http://www.twainquotes.com/Classic.html>

In other words: Yes, in a world where every coder had an MIT degree, nobody
would be especially impressed by DSLs.

Or maybe that wouldn't be enough. I've met several people who had SICP for
their first-year programming class and did not like it at all.

~~~
eru
Real man don't eat quiche.

------
lisporama
Aren't embedded languages (languages built "on lisp") superior to DSL's?
Embedded languages can integrate with each other seamlessly if need be... and
they can be manipulated in terms of the parent language.

~~~
AllMighty
Having access to the full power of the parent language can be a problem. This
point is well articulated here:
<http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower.html>

------
richcollins
Why does the fact it appears in SICP make it any less interesting? Also, how
often do LISPers use Macros for actual metalinguistic abstraction, rather than
as a tool for code generation?

