[kbenson]

You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood my purpose for engaging you. I tried repeatedly to move the conversation from a poorly supported absolutist statement from you to a productive discussion about what makes a DSL good or bad, but you're only interested in defending yourself and your over encompassing statement, not in actually having a discussion. Such as why does being fundamental in some way make it a good DSL? Are all fundamental concepts worthy of a DSL?

In any case it's clear you're uninterested in engaging on that and nor are you willing to consider your statement carefully and actually support it with additional examples (beyond some puzzling critiques of makefiles which make me think you don't understand the point of a DSL at all) or walk it back to a reasoned examination. So I'm not sure we'll get much out of continuing this.

[dunk010]

I think you’re giving yourself quite a bit too much credit there. Most of this discussion you’ve been trying to argue about regex. We can drop it up to a higher level, sure, but you seem to only want to do that to avoid conceding in the specifics.

As I’ve quite clearly said, regex is a good DSL - so I obviously do think, and have argued above, that there is a split between “good” and “bad” DSLs, but examples of good ones are vanishingly scarce.

I think, given that it’s your position that DSLs are generally good; or at least that there are many examples that you find fine, then it’s upon you to provide examples. So far you named Makefiles, which are hilariously bad, but your response to my comments on it was basically some lazy ad-hominem, so I don’t hold out hope for any actual intelligent analysis.

But as I have outlined above there is a giant chasm of difference between mathematically-backed deep and broad DSLs, and… some ad-hoc commercialware that iterates towards being a full language but with bad, ad-hoc design and worse tooling.