Hi all, I'd like to summarize my impressions on the DSL issue, gathered from the responses to my posts. It is absolutely amazing, various people have shown here that it is possible to design languages within haskell that are almost or just as powerful and safe as haskell itself. It is probably even possible to create an EDSL within an EDSL within haskell. Amazing! Uhm... ... but in that case I really wonder why I should not use Haskell directly then. Because out of the EDSL I can clearly see the "E" and I can see the "L" but having slight problems figuring out where the "D" and the "S" come in. In short, yes it's great that you can create a language within Haskell so powerful that it's gone full circle and is general purpose again, but what good is that? The efforts I've seen here where efforts to create a rich and powerful syntax, but aren't we supposed to focus on expressing semantics specific to a problem in a DSL rather? I'm not trying to put the efforts and achievements of the people who have done such amazing work down, but what exactly is it that I missed? Günther