[racket] syntax, differently

> In a language like Ruby,
>
>   pos.draw
>
> just doesn't care, If pos has an draw field at run-time, good enough.
> Even if pos isn't a position but happens to have a draw field, just
> keep on computing.

This is not quite accurate.  You're conflating representation,
reaction, and a smidgen of value judgment.  So, for the benefit of
those who did read your otherwise excellent explanation, here's a more
accurate description, unfortunately using several big words (because I
don't have time to write this using small ones with equal precision):

Structured values mean something very different in
Ruby/Python/JavaScript than they do in Java and Racket.  In the
latter, a structured value has a well-defined, fixed set of fields.
Their names are first-order entities that can be used only in
dereference positions.  (That's a slight fudge when it comes to
Racket, but this is a good conceptual model.)

In contrast, in scripting languages structured values are simply
associations from values to values.  It makes no sense to say o.f and
o[10] of the same o in Java, but it does in these languages.  The
reason is because .f is syntactic sugar for ["f"] (the quotes are
literal -- they are not meta-syntax).

That's the semantic representation.

Separate from that is the reaction when something isn't present in the
association.  There is nothing preventing o.f -- which, as we've
noted, is really o["f"] in these languages -- from halting with an
error when "f" isn't associated with o.  If Racket were to adopt an
association syntax, I sure hope this is what it would do semantically.

Sadly, the scripting languages prefer to continue evaluating with
nonsense.  And that's the value judgment.

Shriram