5 ms·
I guess I'm alone on this, but I want as little special syntax as possible, it's the primary thing I like about Scheme. ' ` , # <- that's enough, let's stop the
by Touche 8y ago
I guess I'm alone on this, but I want as little special syntax as possible, it's the primary thing I like about Scheme. ' ` , # <- that's enough, let's stop there. Everything else should be in an s-expression.
- hashkb 8y agoIt's not special syntax just because the identifier is some symbols. If you don't like the semantics, don't use it; but it's not correct to accuse it of being "special syntax". Edit: oh, and if you _do_ like the semantics, but hate the weird name, just give it a new name that makes sense to you. (that-macro-from-clojure ....)
- peatmoss 8y agoPart of the joy of Racket is that you can mix and match :-) In some cases, it allows people who like some of the Clojure syntax to still write you libraries. In other cases it allows you to move a prototype from normal Racket to Typed Racket in a piecemeal way. In general I like the purity of scheme as well, but sometimes that little bit of syntactic sugar goes a long way. Non-Racket Schemers use macros too, and Racket’s are second to none. Use what you want and avoid the rest!
- drb91 8y agoWell, I suggest not using anything but scheme.
- AlexCoventry 8y agoDownvoted for facile snark.
- spinningarrow 8y agoClojure does have a number of sigils and special syntax, but they all seem to have s-expression alternatives. e.g. a dict can be created with {:a 1, :b 2} or (hash-map :a 1, :b 2); dereferencing an atom can be done with @a or (deref a) and so on.
- keymone 8y agothat's a pretty arbitrary stopping point, don't you think? it's not like clojure added that much to the list: [], {} and @ but it is lightyears ahead in convenience