Wrong. The lack of tool support for DSLs is a real issue. We've barely scratched the surface of what IDEs can do. We often have to deal with lackluster editing

Wrong. The lack of tool support for DSLs is a real issue. We've barely scratched the surface of what IDEs can do. We often have to deal with lackluster editing support (especially so in the case of DSLs) and I find this deplorable. As an example, if a DSL's function C references a lisp function F, the IDE should integrate the two languages enough that when you ask who calls F the IDE will list C among the calling functions. edit: Suddenly I have a feeling people will have to see the power of a "real" IDE for themselves before they see that all the seemingly small improvements are really worthwhile. It's a bit like explaining Lisp macros to a beginner: the simple examples are easy enough to understand but aren't very compelling, while the complex, more worthwhile examples are too difficult to understand. So let's talk again in a few years when I have an implementation ;P