3 ms·

I think you're talking past each other. "DSLs" can both mean "Using the language's variant of 'arrays' to build a DSL via specific shapes" like hiccup in Cloju

I think you're talking past each other. "DSLs" can both mean "Using the language's variant of 'arrays' to build a DSL via specific shapes" like hiccup in Clojure does, and also "A mini-language inside of a program for a specific use case" like Cucumber is its own language for acceptance testing, but it's "built in in Ruby" in reality. Clojure favors the "DSLs made out of shapes" rather than "DSLs that don't look/work like lisp inside of our programs".

midnight_eclair 7mo ago
no, not really. when people talk about DSLs in context of lisps, they usually still mean staying in the domain of s-expressions.
- embedding-shape 7mo ago
  Yes, maybe that's the sort of DSL you're talking about, the other person mentioned "Clojure style discourages building DSLs" which I'm fairly sure to be about the other DSL and is also true, hence the whole "you're talking/reading past each other".
  - midnight_eclair 7mo ago
    that doesn't make sense, why would they be talking about departure from traditional lisps if they weren't talking about macro-based DSLs?
    - embedding-shape 7mo ago
      > Clojure style discourages building DSLs and the like and prefers to remain close to Clojure types and constructs This to me, seems to indicate they're talking about "DSLs not built with Clojure types and constructs", I'm just trying to have the most charitable reading of what people write and help you understand why it seems you're not actually disagreeing, just talking about different things.
      - midnight_eclair 7mo ago
        > DSLs not built with Clojure types and constructs and in context of lisps that still most likely means macro-based DSLs using traditional lisp constructs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯