On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 6:17:47 PM UTC-4, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote: > > I just want to give one thought as input to this discussion and will > admit, that I did not read every (but some) of the posts above. > > When I write code in Racket or Scheme, I mostly like the parentheses, as > they make writing the code easy. I can very easily select a block and move > it around, without introducing any syntax errors. I can also quickly see > what the scope of something is, what other expression it is in. I don't get > these things from languages without this many parentheses or without > s-expression syntax. I need my parentheses as markers for my cursor to > quickly jump around. It is the most pleasant code typing experience I've > ever had. So when considering to move away from parentheses, please also > consider the burden that those parentheses take away from the person > writing the code. When I edit for example Python code, things are not clear > when moving around code. This is worse in Python than in other languages, > which at least have curly braces (but usually some other annoying > deficiencies). If there was a move away from this many parentheses (read > markers for my cursor), it would have to provide equal editability, for it > to be attractive to me. A design based on indentation or something like > that is not going to cut it for me. And what else would be used as start > and end markers for expressions? Wouldn't that in essence just be another > form of "parentheses", just looking different? How would any editor know, > where an expression starts and ends for easy selection and moving around, > if there were no such markers? So far I got no idea how that could be done > without introducing loads of new constraints about how you can nest > expressions into the language. So it beats me. Maybe my imagination in this > area is still somewhat limited. > > Just my 2c. >
Zelphir: Since you mentioned you haven't read all the posts (and who could blame you, there's a lot!), I wanted to mention that the core team has stated you will continue to be able to program in #lang racket with s-expressions, and it will continue to be "well supported." If Racket, with it's Scheme heritage, can't continue to support a Scheme-like programming experience, what that would say about language oriented programming? As Matthew said, "Don't Panic" :) Thanks, Brian -- 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/2f538039-5d73-4273-ae9d-d1dd0febdef4%40googlegroups.com.
