or that in LISP every DSL still looks like LISP <bait>When your language is already at the top of the beauty chart, why would you write a DSL that is not also

or that in LISP every DSL still looks like LISP <bait>When your language is already at the top of the beauty chart, why would you write a DSL that is not also beautiful?</bait> It is really a programmer choice. Lisp programmers generally love the way Lisp looks because of the advantages awarded by those looks (check Myth #7 here: http://www.algo.be/cl/myths.htm http://www.algo.be/cl/myths.htm). But you can certainly create a DSL that requires more extensive string parsing, and CL provides a lot of help towards that end, including native translations of strings to Lisp objects where your parser needs them.