2 ms·
I totally agree with you, I am uncomfortable with Racket 2 having a non-Lisp syntax. As someone who has used Lisp languages to get stuff done for over 30 years,
by mark_l_watson 7y ago
I totally agree with you, I am uncomfortable with Racket 2 having a non-Lisp syntax. As someone who has used Lisp languages to get stuff done for over 30 years, I would say NO to the syntax change.
That said, Racket is open source the maintainers have good reasons for a change based on getting a larger user base. I wish them great success.
- peatmoss 7y agoI disliked the “Racket2” name because it strongly implied that Racket 1 (the one with parentheses on the outside and few commas) was the past, and that something with a vaguely Algol-ish syntax was the future. But Racket as a project was always about language experiments. I certainly didn’t bristle at Typed Racket or any of the other languages. And so, in changing “Racket 2” to “Rhombus” and committing to mainline support of Racket, I feel pretty comfortable with the direction. I find this fascinating that I feel this way given that nothing has really changed but the name.