I think the LittleLanguages [0] should be further subdivided into: * languages for describing something (e.g. regular expression, format strings, graph .dot for

I think the LittleLanguages [0] should be further subdivided into: * languages for describing something (e.g. regular expression, format strings, graph .dot format, LaTeX math equations, etc.) that are usable both from standalone UNIX tools, and from inside programming languages * languages with a dedicated tool (awk, etc.) that are not widely available embedded inside other programming languages. Usually these languages allow you to perform some actions / transformations I think both papers agree that the former is "good" (the reimplementation of awk in Scheme uses regular-expressions). In the counterpoint paper it turns a LittleLanguage (Awk) into an Embedded Domain Specific Language by embedding it inside Scheme. SQL is more difficult to categorize: I think the SELECT expression should be considered a LittleLanguage, however the UPDATE/INSERT part is better when having a full programming language available (see procedural languages inside SQL / triggers, which hint at the limits of the base SQL language). [0] http://wiki.c2.com/?LittleLanguage http://wiki.c2.com/?LittleLanguage