> Exhibit B is still a DSL - just expressed in a syntactic manner that is compatible with C-style programming languages. True, I suppose. But I think I can agr

> Exhibit B is still a DSL - just expressed in a syntactic manner that is compatible with C-style programming languages. True, I suppose. But I think I can agree that you could also call the functions in Exhibit B a library. The difference, in my mind, is that Exhibit B gets you most of the benefits of Exhibit A without most of the implementation difficulty, because it avoids the trap of getting too caught up in syntax over semantics. There is a point where DSLs are used enough that implementing the syntax becomes worth it: there's a reason people implemented SQL and Regex. > In this sense, the function call mechanism of the host language isn't being used in it's usual sense - that is for actually doing something. Eh, I don't know about that. If you recognize that functions can be used in this way, it can quickly become a very powerful tool, even moreso if you're working in a language where those functions can return closures. Lots of code is written in this style. Of course nobody writes these specific functions because most languages support regexes. :)