> Alternatively, just write software in a Lisp variant (with good macros, clojure is quite meh here) or Ocaml or Haskell. These languages put you at the level of writing a language for each problem domain immediately and with a comprehensive and useful toolkit.

Great comment. And if a domain-specific-language (DSL) of really custom syntax is needed, an alternative is to use Racket (a Lisp-family language), which allows for creating DSLs of all kind. Racket is already used for designing your own programming language and trying it, so I'm surprised that the author did not mention suggest Racket as a test-bed for the new language.

> This article is sort of fundamentally wrong that it's difficult to write small, purpose built languages. It's not, and even outside the functional and homoiconic meta-syntactic world we have seen code generators deployed regularly.

Correct. For example, most of the common systems used today do use a 'code generator' internally: Every software that uses an ORM library (i.e. Hibernate), is already using a sort of domain-specific-language (i.e. HQL) that, via a code generator, translates to another language (i.e. SQL). So most major platforms (Java, .NET, etc) already have one or many popular libraries that do implement some sort of (limited) DSL and code generator.

I think the aim of the article was to create a new compiler from the ground-up. I think the correct choice for syntax is something that can't be boiled down to three pieces of advice or one article. It is a topic that would require very deep discussion.