rhombus

> I'm curious about how the new Racket syntax works out, but also mildly skeptical. . . I fear that a "lisp" where the ASTs don't look exactly like the text I see in the editor is a lisp that has had its soul amputated. FWIW I talked to Matthias Felleisen about this to some degree this past summer. I asked whether he felt homoiconicity is important, and he essentially said that no, it wasn't particularly important so long as whatever system you arrive at has a sufficiently well-considered design. (Though he couldn't/wouldn't tell me which aspects of syntax he felt are important to designing a metaprogramming system as complete as Racket's.) It's also worth noting that Racket's syntax is not changing. Matthew has said that he regrets calling his proposed project "Racket 2" because he never really intended it to subsume Racket, but rather t

I would agree, I love the structure s-expressions bring, especially using smartparens in Emacs. At the same time I really enjoy some of the deviations from pure s-expressions that Clojure has made (like hash literals, using vectors for function arguments, using position instead of parentheses in binding forms). This suggests to me that there might be a sweet spot between Algol and s-expressions. I'm quite interested to see where the whole Racket 2 thing goes in that regard. For example, the examples here all look quite clean to me: https://github.com/mflatt/rhombus-brainstorming/blob/shrubbe...