Huh, yeah. I don't really enjoy semantic arguments, either, but I think you've got a lot of great points. There is something really genuinely different about a

Huh, yeah. I don't really enjoy semantic arguments, either, but I think you've got a lot of great points. There is something really genuinely different about a "DSL" which has reached the status of being totally externalized. On one hand you're now forced to more completely define the semantics/syntax from scratch (you can't bootstrap, though I think to some degree that 'definition by implementation' here is a big fallacy) but then on the other you're also facing a much greater task if your primary end goal is to just better focus on the domain. In my opinion, DSLs are just languages with an intent to hit a target domain. External DSLs, as I call what you call DSLs at large, are one mechanism for doing that. Internal DSLs, which are not really distinct from APIs + their conventions, have the interesting property, however, of arising in layers. This aids composition and speed to develop. But they absolutely suffer from being compromised on semantics and syntax due to their embedding. And before a Lisper comes by and talks about macros, I think the tradeoff is fundamental. The more you bear on the "underlying" language in your DSL the more you must compromise. Genuinely, a very high-value DSL ought to be externalized, I feel.