Jeremy Miller is looking for a DSL that reads like natural language. My immediate response was that it is not practical, because I assumed he wanted very natural language, which is still not possible to do without extremely high budget. Limiting the problem to just reads like a natural language reduce the problem space significantly.
I am going to have a separate post about how to actually solve such a problem, but for now, I want to talk about the actual requested solution. I think it is 100%solvable with a low cost approach. That is, you can get a DSL that reads like English in under an hour. But I don't think it is valuable.
English is a terrible language to express instructions in. Any natural language is terrible in expressing instructions, just find the nearest army sergeant, they will tell you that.
Let us take a look at a language that actually took this approach:
tell application "Finder"
set the percent_free to ¬ (((the free space of the startup disk) / (the capacity of the startup disk)) * 100) div 1
if the percent_free is less than 10 then tell application (path to frontmost application as text)
display dialog "The startup disk has only " & the percent_free & ¬
" percent of its capacity available." & return & return & ¬ "Should this script continue?" with icon 1 end tell
This is apple script. From my point of view, this is horrible. It is unreadable in the extreme. More than that, trying to explain how this language works, or how it handles error is a non trivial task.
This has been my experience any time I actually tried to create a natural language like syntax. It is too complex, and users get annoyed when they can't use real natural language.
From my perspective, getting an expressive DSL does not means that it has to read like an English statement. In fact, it probably shouldn't. Too much noise involved. A structured approach isn't just to help the compiler, but to help the reader.