Actually, the perceived need for "dumb" DSLs is sprung from the same misconceptions as mentioned in the article and the end result is inevitably that simple problems are made somewhat simpler and complex problems turn into impossible problems.
A proper DSL extension in an unobtrusive host language is another thing but also hard to find. If a Lisp syntax is acceptable then that's the canonical example.
I don't want to get depressed overe all misconcieved excuses for test automation languages, process automation, configuration templating systems, etc, so I'll just stop here.
With regard to LaTeX or HTML, you could even argue that their goals could be better accomplished with some sort of graphical interface, which sounds a lot like… visual programming!
It should be possible for implementation language programmers to create new primitives, that visual language programmers can easily use without learning the implementation language.
And that extension interface should be part of the visual programming language from day one, good enough for the visual language to use itself for most of its built-in primitives, not an afterthought nailed onto the side.
A good professional programmer will feel (and in fact be) constrained and slower by a VPL. That’s frustrating and likely a misuse of resources. I just think the author missed the point that VPLs generally aren’t for “us”, they are for people who something else for a living.