Well! While I am sure that everyone at RacketCon has already discussed this to death, and I’m sure there has been plenty of support to counterbalance the tomato-throwing, let me be the first to say something positive on the mailing list so the optics from here aren’t so gloomy: I find this idea extremely exciting. :) It’s a surprise, for sure, but I will not be doing any panicking.
I don’t have any significant commentary right now, given how vague and open-ended the direction still is, but I am excited by the idea of continuing the Honu line of research. I, too, don’t mind parentheses, but after straddling the Haskell and Racket communities for a few years, I’ll happily defend the readability advantages of a more irregular syntax. I keep coming back to Racket because nothing lets me extend the language like Racket does, but if I could get that kind of flexibility and robustness without s-expressions? It sounds hard to achieve, but if Racket can pull it off (and I am confident Racket can do it as well as anyone), I doubt I would do much looking back. If anything, the one thing I’m disappointed about is that I could not be at RacketCon this year, as it seems like it’s been a bad one to miss, but it’s been fun to follow everything as best as I can from the sidelines. Many thanks to everyone who’s had a part in the organizing, speaking, recording, and streaming! I look forward to seeing where this goes. Alexis > On Jul 14, 2019, at 21:29, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > tl;dr DON'T PANIC > > At RacketCon today, after summarizing the state of work on Racket CS, I > recommended that we next explore the possibly of changing to an > infix-oriented syntax in "Racket2". > > You can find the recording here: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnz6y5U0tFs > > Start at 32:27 for the part about what Racket2 could be. > > I'll produce a text version of the rationale soon. For now, I'd like to > offer a few clarifications: > > * There is no specific proposal for a new syntax, yet. Our next step > will be creating a process to explore a possible new syntax. > > * The talk does include some initial constraints that might guide the > choice of a syntax. Even that meta level (i.e., the set of > constraints) remains subject to a community process. > > * `#lang racket` is not going away and will always have its current > parenthesis-oriented syntax. In the same way that Racket still > supports `#lang scheme` and `#lang mzscheme` and even `(module > <name> mzscheme ....)` and even top-level programs, the Racket > compiler and runtime system will always support `#lang racket` > programs. We believe that Racket's `#lang`-based ecosystem makes it > uniquely positioned for trying new language variants while > preserving and building on our past investments. > > * Any new syntax must specifically preserve Racket-style > language-oriented programming, which means everything from defining > simple pattern-based macros to building whole new `#lang`s with a > smooth path in between. Again, our current macro technology must be > an enabler for a new surface syntax, not a casualty. > > As I hope comes across in the talk, I like the current Racket syntax > --- and how could I not, after 24 years of helping to define it? --- > and I am aware of many potential technical and social pitfalls that > this kind of shift could create. Still, in addition to keeping the core > Racket implementation running, I feel obliged to recommend changes that > I think would be good for the Racket language and community. We've been > lining up some technical solutions for a while. I don't know where the > community discussion will lead, but I'm pretty sure it's time to start > the conversation. > > Whether or not we eventually decide on a different syntax, the design > of Racket2 will require community input and participation. If you want > to know more about how we're thinking about that process, see the > keynote by Aaron Turon: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSjk2PdQm5k > > (We'll have professionally edited videos of all talks available soon.) > > Thanks, > Matthew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/E3D28E85-DB14-4734-B18E-5DFAF6CD9AB0%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
