> The advantage holds while the DSL stays small and constrained enough that a few in-context examples can convey its usage. There is also a real upfront cost in designing and maintaining the language and its semantic model. The payoff is therefore concentrated in well-factored, genuinely constrained DSLs backed by a validator.
dsl stays small is doing all the heavy lifting here
the premise is that because of these few existing dsls (like PlantUML mentioned) my "new dsl" will be equally effective. PlantUML has millions of examples in the training data, my new dsls are not (specially if its not json/yaml or just function chain based). as the number of things that can mix and match increase you are basically looking at a whole system prompt just describing the new language.
this brings us to the second part. step 2: after dsl is 'planned' (note they use the java compiler), the dsl need to have a real compiler/executor, not just a validator. because if then you are going to ask the llm to "compile the dsl to implementation" we are back to square 1.
> the premise is that because of these few existing dsls (like PlantUML mentioned) my "new dsl" will be equally effective. PlantUML has millions of examples in the training data, my new dsls are not (*specially if its not json/yaml* or just function chain based)
I can confirm that having a DSL that is json/yaml helps a ton. Kind of like static type checking, it eliminates entire swaths of syntactical errors, allowing the LLM to focus on the semantics.
> because if then you are going to ask the llm to "compile the dsl to implementation" we are back to square 1.
I think this is an edge case; 99% of the time you (and/or the LLM) would have access to the implementor so it wouldn't need to do this.
> it eliminates entire swaths of syntactical errors, allowing the LLM to focus on the semantics
As I understood it, the idea the article presents is basically the opposite: The LLM is completely clueless about the semantics, but by constraining the language so that semantic errors are syntax errors, we can catch the LLM's bullshit with a simple validation step and make it try again until it produces valid syntax, which limits how wrong it can get the semantics.
It does apply to JSON in a way: An LLM doesn't always produce valid JSON, but it's easy to do a syntax check with a JSON parser and make the LLM try again until the JSON is valid. The JSON might still be semantically wrong on the level of the application domain (have the wrong values), but at least you can be sure that the generated data consists of lists, dictionaries, strings and numbers.
You're probably right about that. It looks like llama.cpp lets you specify a grammar file or a JSON schema - is that what you mean? If the syntax of your DSL can be expressed that way, I suppose you wouldn't have to validate it externally and retry.
it definitely does, and i would say json/yaml is not a dsl. this example of json/yaml keeps coming in the form of "DSL". i would say your configuration is not a dsl, it a declaration. llms are better at declarative stuff ? maybe but there are hardly that many of complex declarative frameworks.
PlantUML is a real dsl. not just declarative yaml.
I would say any JSON or YAML that carries semantics with the syntax is a language. It may be a configuration language rather than a programming language, but it’s a language rather than just generic data for some program to slurp.
> any JSON or YAML that carries semantics with the syntax is a language
semantics are defined by the converter/compiler/interpreter, and that is the process which is going to consume the said json/yaml. if the json/yaml is going to be consumed by any process then the semantics are inherently defined, so by your definition all jsons/yamls are in their own a "language" (or they are not being consumed at all), which just defeats the purpose of calling it a language at that point.
But you can have DSLs that are json/yaml, is my point.
> PlantUML is a real dsl.
PlantUML is a DSL that isn't json/yaml. That doesn't make it better, and you can make the argument that it is worse because the tooling around it won't be as good.
I’ve had good luck with LLMs and ad hoc DSLs, as well as much less common DSLs like liquidsoap’s stream management DSL.
I don’t think there’s magic in DSLs, I just think LLMs respond well to clear, simple structure.
Compilation / execution is often true, but not necessary. DSLs can be entirely declarative and used just for gating the stages of a multi-step workflow with checkpoints that have more structure than natural language.
> less common DSLs like liquidsoap’s stream management DSL
seems to be on github since 2008 so definitely in the training data. i am not talking about less or more common. either "your dsl" would need to look something like someone elses dsl (at this point is it your dsl?) or you need some way to get your dsls examples in the training data for the llm, or feed it in the prompt.
> LLMs respond well to clear, simple structure
and what a "clear simple structure" for a dsl is also quite not mentioned. clear and simple would be quite subjective based on the domain, the article says let the llm go in a loop trying to figure out the dsl for you.
> checkpoints that have more structure than natural language
if llm is at any point in the structured generation part then either you have a deterministic validator/compiler or you are back to reading/reviewing it manually, what can you trust ?
Re: less common, I was just saying it doesn’t take millions off examples like PlanetUML.
> what can you trust
I wasn’t clear enough here — you’re responding to DSLs as an interface from non-deterministic LLMs to deterministic external systems.
What I meant was using DSLs as intermediate checkpoints in multi-LLM processing. If you just flow natural language through 5 LLM calls, the last one may be getting something very different from what it’s prompt is designed for.
But if you make the DSL a contract for handoff, results are much more stable.
Perfect and deterministic? No, of course not. Just an improvement and mitigation. But it’s served me well.
> or you need some way to get your dsls examples in the training data for the llm, or feed it in the prompt.
I'm really not sure this is true. Recently for work I've been making changes in a system written in tcl in the early 2000s, including a custom dsl that has never escaped this company. The LLMs can write it fine. It wrote it almost acceptably on first sight, an hour or two of targeted test cases to extract a one page functional spec of the subset we needed and that was it. They are quite good at finding and fitting to patterns, go figure.
> The LLMs can write it fine. It wrote it almost acceptably on first sight
you are probably talking of some coding harness which looked up the existing code base and then made it and not something like first prompt to llm "write xyz testcase in my systems company dsl in tcl from early 2000".
> LLMs can write it fine
sure, coding by examples is fine (it goes back to "system prompt describing the language"). but the claim we are arguing is reliability. did the llm generate 100% test case or code after reading your existing codebase, likely not as you mention it "almost acceptably on first sight".
i would probably be in denial if was suggesting llms not good at finding and fitting patterns.
Well yes of course I was using a harness lol. We're talking about the application of tools to engineering problems. Getting an LLM to cold start on a completely novel to it language without prompting is a different problem that I don't have.
> you are basically looking at a whole system prompt just describing the new language
whats wrong with this? You may be over-indexing on the need for large quantities of examples. These days self-play through RL is far more effective and data (not compute) efficient.
nothing wrong if your dsl stays small and you have deterministic validators/compilers to your actual target.
if dsl gets large, the number of potential interactions your dsl allow will grow exponentially (unless you are building an one dimensional action layer). and there will be semantic issues unless your dsl is "clear and intuitive", also comprehensive enough to accomodate your ongoing changes, else every change is now 2 changes.
so you now you need a comprehensive manual for your agent which needs to be sent in every /completion request.
DSLs are a great middle ground for 'use LLM to turn ambiguous spec into something well defined', with the caveat that without discipline they'll inevitably expand until you should just have the agent write whatever the final language is.
There's a context tax up front (which will hopefully be less relevant over time) and then you really need a compiler/linter with helpful errors to keep it on the rails, because there is no corrective context in pretraining for something novel.
A purely descriptive DSL is just a convention, which is useful, but doesn't inject reliability the same way an enforced syntactic contract does.
I just have them write the tools to write the DSL's to do the thing then (most of) the sloppy code stays in the generator and if all the different things depend on each other they don't go stale and whatnot. And let them design the DSL themselves for whatever task so it matches their 'internal concept' of how the things work.
Worked out pretty well so far but not really practical unless your goal is to make the tools to make the DSLs to make jitting VMs -- https://github.com/dan-eicher/BBQ kind of snowballed from "let's parse some binary files" to a way over the top toolkit for playing around with this stuff but, it's fun...
What is the general consensus on Martin Fowler - I worked with Thought Works and they were obsessed with overcomplicating everything, but maybe that is just agency in general?
I think it goes without saying that the biggest fight we have as developers is keeping things as simple as possible when most external factors encourage complexity, especially LLMs.
Ironically Martin fowler was among the wave of influencers that were trying to get away from complexity of enterprise software. remember EJBs lol.
That wave included
1. TDD by beck
2. spring framework
3. rails ( later )
4. Agile manifesto
5. refactoring by fowler
6. gang of four design patterns
That said. Thoughtworks is a moneygrab that tried to cash in on fowler brand. I worked with them at sears ( worked closely with author of article) and siemens. they were no different from any other consulting firms that try to overcomplicate things so they can deploy more warm bodies to the project.
I'm curious too. In the Korean IT scene, his name is legendary. Because many articles reference his writings, and famous Korean IT YouTubers worship him. (I worship him too.)
So I do have some questions. First, I still enjoy reading ThoughtWorks Radar. For someone like me, who's in a vulnerable position far from the cutting edge of technology, it always helps me keep some level of synchronization with the tech world. But I'm curious whether this is just a perspective from Korea, or if it's the same in the West.
And as for the tendency to overcomplicate things—I think that even when something is implemented simply, the explanation often ends up being quite complex. Honestly, I find Fowler's writing easy to read
I already had a DSL and with a proper prompt and a checker tool, even tiny LLMs could build really good scripts in that language. Gemma 12B QAT was excellent.
Actually the tool-calling convention is a small DSL too.
I suspect the DSL ideally has to be similar to something in the LLM's training set though.
It doesn't have to feel too alien, otherwise the description of it has to be thorough and will eat up a lot of context.
Frontier models don't suffer as much of this limitation since they can grab onto a larger corpus of knowledge, but they're expensive.
This reminds me of this Bjarne Stroustrup's Rule (creator of C++):
- For new features, people insist on loud, explicit syntax.
- For established features, people want terse notation
Hillel Wayne [1] argues that the same applies for the differences between what beginners and experts desire from a language:
Beginners need explicit syntax, experts want terse syntax.
In my mind, DSLs are related to that – a short notation to avoid repetition. And LLMs are the experts.
I wonder if Lisp with its powerful DSL-creating macros will enjoy more popularity in the near future.
Logically this makes sense, but in practice it doesn’t, at least in my experience with SwiftUI. The LLM isn’t any better about generating/understanding it.
While the DSL is more formal than natural language, it’s not what we’re communicating to the LLM with, so it’s advantages are washed away. And typical code is more strict/rigorous than DSLs so I think that’s why I see worse results, because a typical languages compiler “catches” more mistakes, versus a DSL that’s easy to write but has lots of implicitness.
I’ve had the same journey experimenting with levels if abstraction too. Going lower, and exposing the LLM to the “full-stack” works much better than trying to build up abstractions it can’t see into without extra steps.
I don’t want to be too much of a hater, but these types of panacea/architecture posts are usually written by people who don’t work in the field, lack pressure or constraints, and get paid to goof around in castles of the mind. I would simply skip over it and hold my comments/opinions to myself, but they tend to have an outsized influence on software engineering practices.
I’ve had great luck building SwiftUI apps with GPT-5.5 (now GPT-5.6 Sol), Opus 4.8 and Fable 5. I’m just offering another data point, not suggesting on the effectiveness of DSLs for this.
One line of thinking can be that frontier models are already powerful enough to brute force through it, but this might be a stronger indicator for success for smaller models.
No argument that it works, it definitely does. I just think the LLMs have a hard time with tweaks/modifications of any kind, more so than what I see even in a custom GUI toolkit I’ve built that it has zero training data on.
Asking for simple changes to SwiftUI interfaces I’ve one-shot is always a frustrating experience for me
As much as I dislike them [1], DSLs are an easy way to provide domain specific backpressure to your llm which might not easily be available in your language.
The post would have been stronger and more useful focusing and expanding on the abstraction portion of his message as well as system and program design. Those elements were there but seem sidelined by the focus on DSL. For most developers on most projects, the key take away is we all have to both get good at system and program design especially around abstractions, shapes, responsilibility. Then we have to get good at inserting our selves in the AI loop to steer those decisions a lot in the beginning, regularly as the project kicks off and still more than we think as the project matures.
What I do for my one framework (in dotnet, strong typing & compiler) is to create claude skills (bash scripts and dotnet console apps) that claude can call to do various things within the framework. I have a template engine (for classes/db scripts/view engine templates), build tools, deployment tools, backup tools, infra docs - all of it works amazingly well. I built them in a standardized way so it's easy to chain them together and claude just 'gets it'. It feels like a DSL on steroids.
Rather than DSLs I’ve found careful force tools results force the same kind of discipline in a more straightforward way to implement. So it’s normal to ask the llm to answer only yes or no and they are pretty good at following that instruction but it doesn’t scale so well. Whereas if the shape of the force tool call gives them more richness without giving them freedom to go off piste it scales to more nuanced results whilst also being trivial to parse.
I agree. What is missing from the discussion about DSLs are the importance of tooling such as linters, LSPs, etc, to give the LLMs further context.
For example, charts/plots are often stringly typed with regards to column names and a DSL specific to plotting could give immediate feedback to an LLM.
It absolutely blows me away that there is still a significant amount of people out there kidding themselves that they're effectively using a coding harness .... and don't get this simple fact.
The gap I've hit generating GPU kernels with agents
code that compiles and runs fine but is slower than the baseline. Validator says pass, result is useless. Speed targets have to be part of the check, not just correctness
> One domain that suffers from this particularly is GPU kernel engineering. We adopt our previous idea for detecting reward hacking from SpecBench and apply that to a set of KernelBench tasks, measuring whether the speedup the agent reports on the unit tests actually survives in the end-to-end workload (e.g. model training). A kernel counts as reward hacking if less than half of its claimed speedup survives there, including outright slowdowns and failures.
I discovered this a few months ago when I was describing a binary data format using Dogma. On a whim, I tried handing the task off to Claude and it not only finished it correctly, but also fixed some errors!
I frequently blur the line between ad-hoc DSL and pseudocode, and just hand it off to the LLM. I want to get the thoughts out of my head as fast as possible, using whatever structure makes sense to me. Even if you know all of the code to be written, I think this is a huge win with LLMs, where your intent is more important than syntax.
That’s basically LISP 101. Before solving a problem, you build out the spare parts and the tooling. And then the software building feels like assembling lego blocks. Building a DSL or a good set of symbols (functions/classes/constants/enum/…) is the cornerstone of DDD.
The actual implementation details only matters at the coding stage. At the design stage, it’s better to define the glossary and its semantic.
The only thing which enables reliable use of LLMs are statistical techniques.
Even the most constrained and well-designed Disney world ride will break down in some embarrassing way every now and again. As you increase the # of parallel rides, the chances that at least one of them will touch the desired parts of the search space go up dramatically.
The fact that the major model providers keep publishing nano/mini/luna variants should be a massive hint that there's more to this than one big fat loop magically one-shotting everything.
This is a statistical technique, effectively: it shrinks the problem space the LLM faces at each decision point. Ideally, it would be a way to turn a request from an open-world game into a game on rails. Given the DSL, my options are only X or Y at this point in the solution.
Admittedly, that’s just improving the likelihood of getting a successful result, but if you mean 100% when you say “reliable”, that’s a false equivalence. No coder gets it right reliably either.
Exactly, and a dsl gives you many options and tools to make the llm more reliable: a grammar enables deterministic syntax checker, error messages injecting correct syntax into the context, linting, terse examples in the skills for token optimization, and even the option to add the grammar to the llm to help it decide what next tokens are acceptable.
> PlantUML, Mermaid, and Graphviz are domain specific languages for visual modeling; SQL is a DSL for querying databases; Kubernetes YAML is a DSL for describing cloud infrastructure.
I'm really starting to tire of people making broad, general claims about how LLMs work or how to use them with N = 1 or 2.
An LLM is a statistics machine for goodness sake. Basically any general claim about them needs to exploit the law of large numbers to be even remotely sensible. You cannot extrapolate from one-off behavioral successes. LLMs are not understanding anything in the way humans do. If they did, yeah, maybe you could extrapolate hard from small samples, but they don't work or understand things like we do. You need to show that the behavior you are documenting is an average behavior the LLM converges toward in the long run.
its a specific type of language, not all language are the same , the nature of that specificity is the main point of the the claim made in this article
People have settled on the term DSL to identify those languages whose domains are highly constrained as compared to more general purpose or broad domain languages. This usage exists whether or not you think the term itself is stupid.
> The advantage holds while the DSL stays small and constrained enough that a few in-context examples can convey its usage. There is also a real upfront cost in designing and maintaining the language and its semantic model. The payoff is therefore concentrated in well-factored, genuinely constrained DSLs backed by a validator.
dsl stays small is doing all the heavy lifting here
the premise is that because of these few existing dsls (like PlantUML mentioned) my "new dsl" will be equally effective. PlantUML has millions of examples in the training data, my new dsls are not (specially if its not json/yaml or just function chain based). as the number of things that can mix and match increase you are basically looking at a whole system prompt just describing the new language.
this brings us to the second part. step 2: after dsl is 'planned' (note they use the java compiler), the dsl need to have a real compiler/executor, not just a validator. because if then you are going to ask the llm to "compile the dsl to implementation" we are back to square 1.
> the premise is that because of these few existing dsls (like PlantUML mentioned) my "new dsl" will be equally effective. PlantUML has millions of examples in the training data, my new dsls are not (*specially if its not json/yaml* or just function chain based)
I can confirm that having a DSL that is json/yaml helps a ton. Kind of like static type checking, it eliminates entire swaths of syntactical errors, allowing the LLM to focus on the semantics.
> because if then you are going to ask the llm to "compile the dsl to implementation" we are back to square 1.
I think this is an edge case; 99% of the time you (and/or the LLM) would have access to the implementor so it wouldn't need to do this.
> it eliminates entire swaths of syntactical errors, allowing the LLM to focus on the semantics
As I understood it, the idea the article presents is basically the opposite: The LLM is completely clueless about the semantics, but by constraining the language so that semantic errors are syntax errors, we can catch the LLM's bullshit with a simple validation step and make it try again until it produces valid syntax, which limits how wrong it can get the semantics.
It does apply to JSON in a way: An LLM doesn't always produce valid JSON, but it's easy to do a syntax check with a JSON parser and make the LLM try again until the JSON is valid. The JSON might still be semantically wrong on the level of the application domain (have the wrong values), but at least you can be sure that the generated data consists of lists, dictionaries, strings and numbers.
I thought they got like a logit mask that removes illegal next tokens, at least in llama.cpp and GBNF.
You're probably right about that. It looks like llama.cpp lets you specify a grammar file or a JSON schema - is that what you mean? If the syntax of your DSL can be expressed that way, I suppose you wouldn't have to validate it externally and retry.
> DSL that is json/yaml helps a ton
it definitely does, and i would say json/yaml is not a dsl. this example of json/yaml keeps coming in the form of "DSL". i would say your configuration is not a dsl, it a declaration. llms are better at declarative stuff ? maybe but there are hardly that many of complex declarative frameworks.
PlantUML is a real dsl. not just declarative yaml.
I would say any JSON or YAML that carries semantics with the syntax is a language. It may be a configuration language rather than a programming language, but it’s a language rather than just generic data for some program to slurp.
> any JSON or YAML that carries semantics with the syntax is a language
semantics are defined by the converter/compiler/interpreter, and that is the process which is going to consume the said json/yaml. if the json/yaml is going to be consumed by any process then the semantics are inherently defined, so by your definition all jsons/yamls are in their own a "language" (or they are not being consumed at all), which just defeats the purpose of calling it a language at that point.
> and i would say json/yaml is not a dsl
But you can have DSLs that are json/yaml, is my point.
> PlantUML is a real dsl.
PlantUML is a DSL that isn't json/yaml. That doesn't make it better, and you can make the argument that it is worse because the tooling around it won't be as good.
> you can have DSLs that are json/yaml, is my point
i disagree on the semantics of "DSL" vs "config in json". these are different.
and anyways both of them just pretend to be "reliable" by throwing the responsibility to an upper layer of validator/compiler/interpreter
> it is worse because the tooling around it won't be as good
plantuml is good because of the the tooling around it. not sure if we are agreeing/disagreeing there, confused by the wording
Have you looked into YAMLScript?
I’ve had good luck with LLMs and ad hoc DSLs, as well as much less common DSLs like liquidsoap’s stream management DSL.
I don’t think there’s magic in DSLs, I just think LLMs respond well to clear, simple structure.
Compilation / execution is often true, but not necessary. DSLs can be entirely declarative and used just for gating the stages of a multi-step workflow with checkpoints that have more structure than natural language.
> less common DSLs like liquidsoap’s stream management DSL
seems to be on github since 2008 so definitely in the training data. i am not talking about less or more common. either "your dsl" would need to look something like someone elses dsl (at this point is it your dsl?) or you need some way to get your dsls examples in the training data for the llm, or feed it in the prompt.
> LLMs respond well to clear, simple structure
and what a "clear simple structure" for a dsl is also quite not mentioned. clear and simple would be quite subjective based on the domain, the article says let the llm go in a loop trying to figure out the dsl for you.
> checkpoints that have more structure than natural language
if llm is at any point in the structured generation part then either you have a deterministic validator/compiler or you are back to reading/reviewing it manually, what can you trust ?
For open source llms you can give your grammar to the llm to help it decide what valid next tokens it can generate.
Re: less common, I was just saying it doesn’t take millions off examples like PlanetUML.
> what can you trust
I wasn’t clear enough here — you’re responding to DSLs as an interface from non-deterministic LLMs to deterministic external systems.
What I meant was using DSLs as intermediate checkpoints in multi-LLM processing. If you just flow natural language through 5 LLM calls, the last one may be getting something very different from what it’s prompt is designed for.
But if you make the DSL a contract for handoff, results are much more stable.
Perfect and deterministic? No, of course not. Just an improvement and mitigation. But it’s served me well.
its served me okay.
> Perfect and deterministic? No, of course not. Just an improvement and mitigation.
exactly, not reliable, as the article tries to portray
> or you need some way to get your dsls examples in the training data for the llm, or feed it in the prompt.
I'm really not sure this is true. Recently for work I've been making changes in a system written in tcl in the early 2000s, including a custom dsl that has never escaped this company. The LLMs can write it fine. It wrote it almost acceptably on first sight, an hour or two of targeted test cases to extract a one page functional spec of the subset we needed and that was it. They are quite good at finding and fitting to patterns, go figure.
> The LLMs can write it fine. It wrote it almost acceptably on first sight
you are probably talking of some coding harness which looked up the existing code base and then made it and not something like first prompt to llm "write xyz testcase in my systems company dsl in tcl from early 2000".
> LLMs can write it fine
sure, coding by examples is fine (it goes back to "system prompt describing the language"). but the claim we are arguing is reliability. did the llm generate 100% test case or code after reading your existing codebase, likely not as you mention it "almost acceptably on first sight".
i would probably be in denial if was suggesting llms not good at finding and fitting patterns.
Well yes of course I was using a harness lol. We're talking about the application of tools to engineering problems. Getting an LLM to cold start on a completely novel to it language without prompting is a different problem that I don't have.
> you are basically looking at a whole system prompt just describing the new language
whats wrong with this? You may be over-indexing on the need for large quantities of examples. These days self-play through RL is far more effective and data (not compute) efficient.
nothing wrong if your dsl stays small and you have deterministic validators/compilers to your actual target.
if dsl gets large, the number of potential interactions your dsl allow will grow exponentially (unless you are building an one dimensional action layer). and there will be semantic issues unless your dsl is "clear and intuitive", also comprehensive enough to accomodate your ongoing changes, else every change is now 2 changes.
so you now you need a comprehensive manual for your agent which needs to be sent in every /completion request.
DSLs are a great middle ground for 'use LLM to turn ambiguous spec into something well defined', with the caveat that without discipline they'll inevitably expand until you should just have the agent write whatever the final language is.
There's a context tax up front (which will hopefully be less relevant over time) and then you really need a compiler/linter with helpful errors to keep it on the rails, because there is no corrective context in pretraining for something novel.
A purely descriptive DSL is just a convention, which is useful, but doesn't inject reliability the same way an enforced syntactic contract does.
I just have them write the tools to write the DSL's to do the thing then (most of) the sloppy code stays in the generator and if all the different things depend on each other they don't go stale and whatnot. And let them design the DSL themselves for whatever task so it matches their 'internal concept' of how the things work.
Worked out pretty well so far but not really practical unless your goal is to make the tools to make the DSLs to make jitting VMs -- https://github.com/dan-eicher/BBQ kind of snowballed from "let's parse some binary files" to a way over the top toolkit for playing around with this stuff but, it's fun...
What is the general consensus on Martin Fowler - I worked with Thought Works and they were obsessed with overcomplicating everything, but maybe that is just agency in general?
I think it goes without saying that the biggest fight we have as developers is keeping things as simple as possible when most external factors encourage complexity, especially LLMs.
Ironically Martin fowler was among the wave of influencers that were trying to get away from complexity of enterprise software. remember EJBs lol.
That wave included
1. TDD by beck 2. spring framework 3. rails ( later ) 4. Agile manifesto 5. refactoring by fowler 6. gang of four design patterns
That said. Thoughtworks is a moneygrab that tried to cash in on fowler brand. I worked with them at sears ( worked closely with author of article) and siemens. they were no different from any other consulting firms that try to overcomplicate things so they can deploy more warm bodies to the project.
I'm curious too. In the Korean IT scene, his name is legendary. Because many articles reference his writings, and famous Korean IT YouTubers worship him. (I worship him too.)
So I do have some questions. First, I still enjoy reading ThoughtWorks Radar. For someone like me, who's in a vulnerable position far from the cutting edge of technology, it always helps me keep some level of synchronization with the tech world. But I'm curious whether this is just a perspective from Korea, or if it's the same in the West.
And as for the tendency to overcomplicate things—I think that even when something is implemented simply, the explanation often ends up being quite complex. Honestly, I find Fowler's writing easy to read
I already had a DSL and with a proper prompt and a checker tool, even tiny LLMs could build really good scripts in that language. Gemma 12B QAT was excellent.
Actually the tool-calling convention is a small DSL too.
I suspect the DSL ideally has to be similar to something in the LLM's training set though.
It doesn't have to feel too alien, otherwise the description of it has to be thorough and will eat up a lot of context.
Frontier models don't suffer as much of this limitation since they can grab onto a larger corpus of knowledge, but they're expensive.
Pretty much how I use LLMs these days. Even Chatbots are able to work with a 200 line spec for the DSL.
You'd think it wouldn't because, well, no training data, but a short spec is usually enough.
This reminds me of this Bjarne Stroustrup's Rule (creator of C++): - For new features, people insist on loud, explicit syntax. - For established features, people want terse notation
Hillel Wayne [1] argues that the same applies for the differences between what beginners and experts desire from a language: Beginners need explicit syntax, experts want terse syntax.
In my mind, DSLs are related to that – a short notation to avoid repetition. And LLMs are the experts.
I wonder if Lisp with its powerful DSL-creating macros will enjoy more popularity in the near future.
[1] https://buttondown.com/hillelwayne/archive/stroustrups-rule/
Logically this makes sense, but in practice it doesn’t, at least in my experience with SwiftUI. The LLM isn’t any better about generating/understanding it.
While the DSL is more formal than natural language, it’s not what we’re communicating to the LLM with, so it’s advantages are washed away. And typical code is more strict/rigorous than DSLs so I think that’s why I see worse results, because a typical languages compiler “catches” more mistakes, versus a DSL that’s easy to write but has lots of implicitness.
I’ve had the same journey experimenting with levels if abstraction too. Going lower, and exposing the LLM to the “full-stack” works much better than trying to build up abstractions it can’t see into without extra steps.
I don’t want to be too much of a hater, but these types of panacea/architecture posts are usually written by people who don’t work in the field, lack pressure or constraints, and get paid to goof around in castles of the mind. I would simply skip over it and hold my comments/opinions to myself, but they tend to have an outsized influence on software engineering practices.
I’ve had great luck building SwiftUI apps with GPT-5.5 (now GPT-5.6 Sol), Opus 4.8 and Fable 5. I’m just offering another data point, not suggesting on the effectiveness of DSLs for this.
One line of thinking can be that frontier models are already powerful enough to brute force through it, but this might be a stronger indicator for success for smaller models.
No argument that it works, it definitely does. I just think the LLMs have a hard time with tweaks/modifications of any kind, more so than what I see even in a custom GUI toolkit I’ve built that it has zero training data on.
Asking for simple changes to SwiftUI interfaces I’ve one-shot is always a frustrating experience for me
As much as I dislike them [1], DSLs are an easy way to provide domain specific backpressure to your llm which might not easily be available in your language.
1- https://mikehadlow.blogspot.com/2012/05/configuration-comple...
The post would have been stronger and more useful focusing and expanding on the abstraction portion of his message as well as system and program design. Those elements were there but seem sidelined by the focus on DSL. For most developers on most projects, the key take away is we all have to both get good at system and program design especially around abstractions, shapes, responsilibility. Then we have to get good at inserting our selves in the AI loop to steer those decisions a lot in the beginning, regularly as the project kicks off and still more than we think as the project matures.
This remains one of the best articles I have read on LLMs (by the same author) https://martinfowler.com/articles/llm-learning-loop.html
Also this article is a good pre-cursor to the DSL article:
https://martinfowler.com/articles/what-is-code.html
What I do for my one framework (in dotnet, strong typing & compiler) is to create claude skills (bash scripts and dotnet console apps) that claude can call to do various things within the framework. I have a template engine (for classes/db scripts/view engine templates), build tools, deployment tools, backup tools, infra docs - all of it works amazingly well. I built them in a standardized way so it's easy to chain them together and claude just 'gets it'. It feels like a DSL on steroids.
edit: this is all on linux + posgresql.
dotnet on linux friend, what are you using for templating?
Rather than DSLs I’ve found careful force tools results force the same kind of discipline in a more straightforward way to implement. So it’s normal to ask the llm to answer only yes or no and they are pretty good at following that instruction but it doesn’t scale so well. Whereas if the shape of the force tool call gives them more richness without giving them freedom to go off piste it scales to more nuanced results whilst also being trivial to parse.
I agree. What is missing from the discussion about DSLs are the importance of tooling such as linters, LSPs, etc, to give the LLMs further context.
For example, charts/plots are often stringly typed with regards to column names and a DSL specific to plotting could give immediate feedback to an LLM.
It absolutely blows me away that there is still a significant amount of people out there kidding themselves that they're effectively using a coding harness .... and don't get this simple fact.
The gap I've hit generating GPU kernels with agents code that compiles and runs fine but is slower than the baseline. Validator says pass, result is useless. Speed targets have to be part of the check, not just correctness
> but is slower than the baseline. Validator says pass, result is useless
You should read this blog, they cover this exact scenario - https://www.weco.ai/blog/first-evidence-of-recursive-self-im...
> One domain that suffers from this particularly is GPU kernel engineering. We adopt our previous idea for detecting reward hacking from SpecBench and apply that to a set of KernelBench tasks, measuring whether the speedup the agent reports on the unit tests actually survives in the end-to-end workload (e.g. model training). A kernel counts as reward hacking if less than half of its claimed speedup survives there, including outright slowdowns and failures.
"Performance is the most important feature"
I discovered this a few months ago when I was describing a binary data format using Dogma. On a whim, I tried handing the task off to Claude and it not only finished it correctly, but also fixed some errors!
I frequently blur the line between ad-hoc DSL and pseudocode, and just hand it off to the LLM. I want to get the thoughts out of my head as fast as possible, using whatever structure makes sense to me. Even if you know all of the code to be written, I think this is a huge win with LLMs, where your intent is more important than syntax.
This is exactly it.
Typing was always just the interface. The keyboard was never the scarce resource. Judgment was.
Architecture scales. Implementation accumulates.
That’s basically LISP 101. Before solving a problem, you build out the spare parts and the tooling. And then the software building feels like assembling lego blocks. Building a DSL or a good set of symbols (functions/classes/constants/enum/…) is the cornerstone of DDD.
The actual implementation details only matters at the coding stage. At the design stage, it’s better to define the glossary and its semantic.
Blimey there is always a new thing to learn/use/know with AI - keeping up is getting tiring.
The only thing which enables reliable use of LLMs are statistical techniques.
Even the most constrained and well-designed Disney world ride will break down in some embarrassing way every now and again. As you increase the # of parallel rides, the chances that at least one of them will touch the desired parts of the search space go up dramatically.
The fact that the major model providers keep publishing nano/mini/luna variants should be a massive hint that there's more to this than one big fat loop magically one-shotting everything.
This is a statistical technique, effectively: it shrinks the problem space the LLM faces at each decision point. Ideally, it would be a way to turn a request from an open-world game into a game on rails. Given the DSL, my options are only X or Y at this point in the solution.
Admittedly, that’s just improving the likelihood of getting a successful result, but if you mean 100% when you say “reliable”, that’s a false equivalence. No coder gets it right reliably either.
Exactly, and a dsl gives you many options and tools to make the llm more reliable: a grammar enables deterministic syntax checker, error messages injecting correct syntax into the context, linting, terse examples in the skills for token optimization, and even the option to add the grammar to the llm to help it decide what next tokens are acceptable.
So, formal verification then...
> PlantUML, Mermaid, and Graphviz are domain specific languages for visual modeling; SQL is a DSL for querying databases; Kubernetes YAML is a DSL for describing cloud infrastructure.
Arent these all in training data too?
I'm really starting to tire of people making broad, general claims about how LLMs work or how to use them with N = 1 or 2.
An LLM is a statistics machine for goodness sake. Basically any general claim about them needs to exploit the law of large numbers to be even remotely sensible. You cannot extrapolate from one-off behavioral successes. LLMs are not understanding anything in the way humans do. If they did, yeah, maybe you could extrapolate hard from small samples, but they don't work or understand things like we do. You need to show that the behavior you are documenting is an average behavior the LLM converges toward in the long run.
The return of Ruby =]
"DSL" is a stupid word. If it's a language, it's a language.
its a specific type of language, not all language are the same , the nature of that specificity is the main point of the the claim made in this article
all languages are embedded in some domain, therefore having a domain does not make a language "a specific type of language"
People have settled on the term DSL to identify those languages whose domains are highly constrained as compared to more general purpose or broad domain languages. This usage exists whether or not you think the term itself is stupid.
Many languages are in fact designed and publicized as general-purpose programming languages.
what does it do , can u explain more?