[jhorsager]

I hear this alot about Racket as if this is the value proposition and Racket stands alone with these features. Languages like Ruby are routinely used to build DSLs (RSpec, Rails, ServerSpec, Chef...etc). I would like to hear somebody address why Racket is superior to languages like Ruby for creating DSLs, because it for sure doesn't stand alone. Metaprogramming is a feature in a LOT of languages. I'm not arguing for those languages, I'm arguing Lisp languages aren't the only ones capable of creating other languages and a comparison would be more useful than repeated emphasis on unique ability for the task which I don't think is necessarily true.

[creatornator]

In practice most Ruby "DSL"s are just regular libraries that you happen to be able to use without the familiar foo(bar) function call syntax. It's the difference between "Domain Specific Language" and "A Domain Specific Language", or embedded vs. hosted/standalone DSL's [0]. The value that Racket provides is facility in developing standalone languages, as opposed to the embedded DSL's that people make in Ruby.

To address the examples you gave, RSpec, Chef, etc., those literally ARE just using Ruby, no new syntax, no new semantics.

[0] https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-embedded-domain-specific-la...

[xrayspec]

The author acknowledges that other languages can be used for DSLs. He claims that Racket's hygienic macro system is the special feature that makes it superior for the task.