[adwn]

> I would argue that the prevalence of HDLs proves that DSLs are a good design for problem domains that scale in complexity.

The major HDLs (i.e., Verilog/SystemVerilog and VHDL) are not DSLs in any meaningful sense of the word. There exist HDLs which actually are DSLs, but they're mostly used by hobbyist and aren't gaining any significant traction in the industry.

[duped]

HDLs are the textbook definition of a domain specific language (the domain being the description of hardware, either it's behavior or design or both).

[monocasa]

That's like saying that software languages are all DSLs, the domain being the description of von Neumann style software.

[ajross]

Lots of "DSLs" are general purpose Turing-complete environments. What distinguishes them is their specific features that target a particular usage, usually just limited to syntax that directly reflects the domain in question.

But my point upthread is that even though these are "general purpose", they're still extremely limited in Practical Expressive Power for Large Scale Development, simply by being weird things that most people don't learn.

Python and Rust and even C++ projects can draw on decades of community experience and best practices and tools and tutorials that tell you how to get stuff done in their environments (and importantly how not to do things).

Literally the smartest people in software are trying to help you write Python et. al... With e.g. SystemVerilog you're limited to whatever the yahoos at Synopsys thought was a good idea. It's not the same.

[adwn]

Okay, I grant that HDLs fall under the wider definition of "domain specific language". I was thinking of the narrower definition, which is apparently more precisely called "embedded DSL" – a language which is a specialization of a general purpose language, respectively embedded or defined within a GPL.