I think it is a perversion of computer science that we think ourselves as users of languages, instead of creators of languages. Especially because it is not hard to create a language these days -- we know much more and have better tools than people 30 years ago. Many of the problems that we consider uber-complicated could be relatively easily solved by creating appropriate problem-specific languages: consider web programming, data mining, etc.
I'm with you. But it becomes a skills and NIH-attitude issue at scale, where the evolution of science is less of a concern than treating the science as constant for an engineering project.
I've seen lovely crafted DSLs that were deemed unmaintainable when the creator moved on, and management cursed the use of them if they weren't already a popular OSS project.
The reason is that DSLs are just viewed as "another" burdensome language, instead of a design for codified problem-specific knowledge. A DSL should evolve as we evolve our understanding of the problem. Think about successful DSLs like Mathematica, for example.
