> At this point rather a lot more weight is being put on the DSL than a mere minilanguage, so I'd embed a language interpreter for something existing. Sure, bu

> At this point rather a lot more weight is being put on the DSL than a mere minilanguage, so I'd embed a language interpreter for something existing. Sure, but then why not just use the (host) programming language directly? > But when you say "users", that indicates a different use case anyway. The minilanguage is basically source compression or code generation, it's for the developers. I meant developers as well - they are still users of your language no? :) > Nobody ever wants that except Lisp users If you are just going to disregard all use-cases and examples I give, then of course in the end we will end up with a solution-space where all my arguments don't apply. You said you can't imagine such a situation, I gave you an example. I can't really do more than that. > But as far as I can tell, "free monads" are a lot of machinery to re-implement imperative stateful programming Not at all. And free monads are completely orthogonal to Haskell and very useful in non-pure-functional programming languages as well. I think this conversation is not very fruitful without a basic understanding of what they are.