> One Java architect can make the code unreadable, even for himself.
I agree, even in my original post.
> But even those DSL language patterns can be learned. In many non-Lisp projects, the DSL gets implemented in C/C++.
The friction is everything, otherwise we'd all be programming Turing machines. In Lisp, it is zero, by design; it can be good or bad, as most things in engineering. Consequences of uncontrolled growth of a DSL vs imposing artificial process limitations for the future of the software project must be considered explicitly; this is automatic when the cost of starting a DSL is non-zero.
One Java architect can make the code unreadable, even for himself.
> canonical way to write a Lisp system is to define a DSL
It's popular, but not canonical. But even those DSL language patterns can be learned. In many non-Lisp projects, the DSL gets implemented in C/C++.