On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:28:53 PM UTC-4, Alex Harsanyi wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 12:55:40 AM UTC+8, Greg Hendershott wrote: >> >> Although I'm still skeptical that changing the surface syntax will be a >> sufficiently big net gain, and ought to be the next, highest priority? >> I'm running with that idea for the following. >> > > I had a look at the proposals at > https://github.com/racket/racket2-rfcs/issues, and they seem reasonable > changes which, in my opinion, would improve the Racket language. Most of > these changes, if they are implemented, would also allow a relatively easy > transition of existing Racket code. > > I can see only one proposal for changing the syntax and it is no more > radical than "#lang at-exp", which is already part of Racket, and seems to > be popular. > > On the other hand, anyone who is reading the posts on racket-users list, > would think that the Racket is a risky language to learn and use at this > time. Perhaps it is time to stop the speculation and comment on the actual > proposals being made? > > Alex. >
Alex: Given that options being considered include converting official documentation over to the as-yet-to-be-defined new syntax and relegating #lang racket to a similar status as #lang mzscheme or #lang scheme, I don't think it's unreasonable to feel there is some risk as things stand *currently*. I expect more clarity to come which may reduce the risk, but it does seem like the majority of people who are downplaying the risk (or the perception of risk) are those in favor of the proposed changes. I suppose that's a natural response. 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/56faf557-a627-4856-b030-effca5700fee%40googlegroups.com.
