Over the years I have loved Racket ... except for those parens ... if only. I don't know when it happened but one day parens and I made a peace treaty, mind melded, became enlightened or just got tired of fighting, but right now I can't see a Racket without parens (s-exps). I have, in fact, grown rather fond of them.
There is the bottom up approach to grow Racket2 from examples and snippets of syntax all to be compared and endlessly debated. Rhetorical mullings from the top down perspective is interesting. Assume a Racket2 will not be another Ruby or Python as Racket is a BIG language and could not be compressed down to a simplistic Python or simple lisp without parens Ruby. And what is the point of Racket2 being a Ruby or Python wanna-be anyway? Would the world move to a better Python/Ruby? Assume it will not be some variation of a Swift, Java or C#. If moving from s-exp to traditional in-fix and f(x,y,z) function application makes sense to seek wider adoption, would not moving from functional to imperative also make sense? After all, all the popular languages are imperative, therefore, to enhance the likelihood of wide adoption should Racket2 be imperative as well? But then wouldn't Racket2 be Algol2 or Ada2 with macros? If it stays functional and expression based with macros then isn't Racket2 then Dylan2? Of the three axioms of Racket2, the f(x,y,z) proscription prohibits some of the cleaner syntax out there as used in SML and Haskell. Is it a hard requirement to ensure full macro support can happen? If Racket2 moves to be even more functional in thrust, drops the f(x,y,z) proscription and adopts currying then isn't Racket2 a polished up nextgen SML2? Maybe a nextgen SML2 for semantics and typing but with the lighter Haskell syntax (no laziness)? What will be the magic twist for widespread adoption that Algol, Ada, Dylan, SML, Haskell and s-exp Racket, all with quality implementations, failed to achieve? How much of a languages adoption success is just shear dumb luck, the right place at the right time independent of the languages overall quality and capability? Does Javascript even need to mentioned here? Should we cover all possible bases and make Racket and its "make languages" core a nextgen DotNet and put together a whole suite of languages, a Lisp like, an Algo like, a SML like, a Haskell like, a Java/Swift like, an Erlang like, ... all interoperable. If that all of that happened tomorrow by magic would the world embrace Racket(2...). -- 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/c8abfd8b-3304-4ed5-9e23-bf2f1d7da8cb%40googlegroups.com.
