> Clojure style discourages building DSLs
does it really? https://github.com/simongray/clojure-dsl-resources
does it really? https://github.com/simongray/clojure-dsl-resources
A good example is making GUIs in Clojure. At first there was a cool macro based system called `fn-fx` that maked a JavaFX GUI. Then vlaaad wrote `cljfx` which just used plain Clojure maps and removed the macros entirely. This increased the boilerplate a tiny amount but made the system much more flexible and extensible
a DSL is a constrained language for expressing domain concepts.
in traditional Lisps they are often syntax-oriented, because code is lists and macros are a natural tool.
in Clojure, pervasive use of keywords, vectors and maps allows you to shift DSL design towards data interpretation rather than syntax transformation.
so in Clojure doesn't discourage DSLs - clojure practicioners simply prefer data-oriented DSLs to macro-oriented ones, mostly because they are easier to reason about and process with existing tools, while macros are used more selectively.
> DSL is a constrained language for expressing domain concepts
What you're calling "data-oriented DSLs" is not constrained.
I guess this is all semantic, but in my book just specifying a data-structure doesn't make a language. You're not extending the host language in any way
constraints come from the interpreter, not from the syntax
> in my book just specifying a data-structure doesn't make a language
correct, it does not
what makes it a language is defining constraints on that structure and rules for how it's interpreted
that works both for clojure (where the data structure can involve lists, vectors, maps and primitives) and traditional lisps (where data structure is lists, or to be precise cons cells and primitives)
in both cases macros can be used and are used (but don't have to be used) to prevent immediate evaluation of those data structures according to host language rules and instead change how they are evaluated according to DSL author's rules
for example, datomic queries are just data structures, but they clearly form a constrained language with well defined semantics and the fact that they're not implemented via macros doesn't make them less of a DSL
"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".
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.
and in context of lisps that still most likely means macro-based DSLs using traditional lisp constructs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯