> you have given your users the "design a language" problem instead of solving it for them This is an interesting observation that reminds me of > In Lisp, yo

> you have given your users the "design a language" problem instead of solving it for them This is an interesting observation that reminds me of > In Lisp, you don't just write your program down toward the language, you also build the language up toward your program. from Paul Graham's "Programming Bottom-Up". Some people would consider it an advantage being allowed to fold the "design a language problem" into the overall problem. More, I think this is just a matter of degree, not kind. As soon as you have something as apparently simple as named procedures, you're really writing a DSL, albeit very coarsely, for your business problem. Add named record types. Add textual macros. Add operator overloading. Add Lisp-style macros. At every point where the language allows a word on the screen to stand in for something larger, you're giving the programmer the power to design a language for their problem domain.