What style of asset/cljs DSL do you find more natural?

asset-dsl.clj

;; Both of these code samples do exactly the same thing: define an asset pipeline
;; with a ClojureScript build that reads from "src/cljs/*" and compiles to "out/*".
;;The question is, which style of DSL is more readable/natural?

(require '[arachne.assets.dsl :as a])
(require '[arachne.cljs.dsl :as cljs])

(def opts {:output-to "js/main.js"
           :output-dir "js"
           :asset-path "js"
           :optimizations :none
           :main 'arachne.cljs.example})

;; Alternative #1: DSL forms with positional arguments. Terse and clean.

(a/input-dir :test/input "src/cljs" :watch? true)
(cljs/build :test/build :test/input opts)
(a/output-dir :test/output :test/build "out")
  
;; Alternative #2: Use named keyword args pervasively. The pieces are labeled.

(a/input-dir :test/input
  :dir "src/cljs"
  :watch? true)

(cljs/build :test/build
  :input :test/input
  :compiler-opts opts)

(a/output-dir :test/output
  :input :test/build
  :dir "out")
  
;; Note that in every case, the first argument is the 'ID' of the component that
;; is used to wire it together with the others.