dsls

There are many open questions about compilation of DSLs other than optimisation, for example automatic generation of operational and axiomatic semantics of DSLs, and associated tooling.

It is very easy to write DSLs in Tcl, you can turn it into a radically different on-purpose language.

It's a different approach to Scala but to say there's no way to do DSLs isn't right.

To add to my previous comment (now below), Scala DSLs are without rival only in the complexity of their composition.

DSLs typically work on much more restricted domains than general purpose languages, so optimisation is much easier, and more powerful.

We are beginning to understand well how canonically to embed DSLs in general purpose languages, and have to build compilers for languages.

You can also define DSLs in Python pretty easily, especially with __call__() methods.

Kotlin DSLs are not as powerful, but are more than enough for Spark.

I am a bit disappointed by this abstraction, especially given what power Clojure gives for creating DSLs.

How about using a language that lets you build DSLs from it?

Groovy DSLs are also as powerful as Scala's and easier to write.

But yet, if your language is not powerful at all, DSLs (standalone) are still better then the libraries, they're just a bit more complicated to implement.

Besides, given that the JVM has two of most advanced meta-programming tools anywhere, Xtext[1] and JetBrains' own MPS[2], I wouldn't call any JVM language's embedded DSLs "without rival".

>"DSLs that are transformed to (mostly rather repetitive) Haskell at compile time-- are MP in my idea" In it kinda the case in C++ too.

What sounds most interesting to me is that it seems to be kinda "dialect-oriented" -- meaning that to use it idiomatically, you should get used to writing tiny parsers (with provided toolbox) for small ad-hoc DSLs.