Most of what you can imagine isn't useful or maintainable. Good tools should have more structure to guide you.

> And with macros you implement your DSLs as compilers, not interpreters

I'm not suggesting interpreters. If anything I'd say that macros - running arbitrary code at compile time - are more interpreterlike than what I'm describing.

> it's using generics (i.e., poor man macros)

Well if you're going to define every useful language feature as "macros" then of course you need macros to implement anything! But most of us consider generics to be different from macros.