generally this would be called an "embedded domain specific language". Some languages are relatively flexible to change the syntax. For example Common Lisp has reader macros to change the token syntax and macros to change the Lisp syntax. With that one can create all kinds of embedded languages, incl. domain specific languages (languages which are specific to a special domain). Examples would be embedded logic languages, query languages, rule based languages, languages to describe user interfaces, etc. The Common Lisp standard has a notorious example for that, a complex LOOP construct, which uses a very different syntax: https://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/m_loo...

There are other real-world examples out there, for example an embedded domain specific language to describe 3d objects in the domain of parametric CAD, for description of technical things like turbines or other parts of an aircraft.

This is basically a lib with some extra syntax to parse CSV Files.

A 'proper' DSL would require a very specific domain where it is applied to. Like document creation, or solving a certain problem and only that but not much else. Turing completeness is usually not required as well.

For example Matlab or LaTex are domain specific as well as SQL. Those are used to do math, create documents or do mangle tables.

Imho just renaming forEach to Map to parse CSV files does not fit the bill so the linked example is not that great.

This project basically a DSL builder thingy with a text processor demo.

As an aside:

I am missing the most important thing when it comes to CSV which is configuration of the input.

Might be because this is more of an example but it is usually a sign of a lets say more academic project.

Working with CSV, is usually a source of a lot of "good fun" where many hours can be spent.

Because your average CSV is often a SSV or TSV in some ISO that is everything but not UTF8. It usually contains line breaks which have been renamed to funny icons by some combo of tool and operating system. Also there are weird escape character in orders which are not consistent on every row. Also sometimes you have titles sometimes not. Dates make no sense, are language depended and in a weird format the intern made up 10 years ago. And even numbers are weird too, like 12e^-25 or '0.00' or '10.000,0'. Then you get columns which really should be 2 or more, or there are lines which span multiple rows.

Ihmo it is way better for robust CSV parsing to have a really low level approach where you rigorously check for everything (and return everything to sender that does not fit).

Any naming of types, functions or variables that you do while solving a problem in software is creating a "language" of terms that are specific to the domain.

A well-constructed fluent API can read a lot like what you would call a DSL. A configuration language in YAML is both YAML and a DSL for config.

Without those function names that you talk about, you wouldn't really recognize a language. Those standard library function names give the "batteries included" kind of feeling. The size of the community libraries furthers that accessibility and productivity feeling of the language. Furthermore, you can certainly create control flows via libraries--with callbacks specifically--and create any kind of novel branching structure your domain had need of.

A good API is a sort of DSL. If it well reflects how you think about the domain and helps you express instructions within that domain. The language can be very different. We experience that in our own language when we hear people talking with heavy use of jargon we don't recognize: they might as well be speaking another language.

But overall I agree with you that I would probably save the use of the jargon term DSL for novel syntax targeted at a specific domain.

I think that's too strict. For example, JAX is (imo) an eDSL, but it doesn't have a specialized syntax, grammar or constructs - on the contrary, it's meant to feel just like Numpy. The thing that makes it special is the interpretation of those constructs.

If I create this kind of mapped functions DSLs I can assure that things will be done a a certain way vs the borderline infinite possibilities of code.

and by DSL they mean "extension language". like vimscript or emacs lisp. or guile or python...

so you can easily add primitives to your application specific language, in go, specifically.

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/vulnerability-research/foss/li...

I think this fits nearly with the common understanding "DSL" doesn't it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-specific_language

As a DSL CEL is kinda pointless, since it does not create any additional convenience beyond the usual mainstream programming language syntax. It therefore leaves potential on the table, and as a tradeoff appeals to familiarity of syntax. As a configuration language it is usable, probably with reduced risk, compared to using Golang itself (no turing-completeness!).

I don't think it actually appeals to anyone, who considers creating a DSL for a good reason.

[1] https://github.com/google/cel-spec/blob/master/doc/intro.md

CEL-go:

https://github.com/google/cel-go

Seems like it would be difficult to use for what they are trying to achieve. Lua would be a better fit, however it is noted that they tried it first, but ran into some kind of issue with it. So now Limbo is among the "off the shelf" options.

This is just another scripting language available. It only differs from something like Lua or Javascript in that it claims to have less complexity. Complexity which, while not fully elaborated on, apparently bogged down their efforts when they originally tried using Lua and an embeddable Go engine.

[0] https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sql.htm

"Structured Query Language" is a so-called backronym. "Standard Query Language" fits the pattern as well. As does "Super Quick Lookup", if you want to have some fun with it.