[plt-scheme] Comments on an alternate syntax for let?

Jos Koot writes:
 > I think that with respect to syntax (as with spelling) some 
 > conservatism is good, because changes disturb the quick reading of a 
 > sentence in slices. We can read a syntax (or spelling) we are accustumed to 
 > with far less eye movements and in much larger slices at a time than one 
 > that looks unfamiliar.  Changes require reprogramming of the pattern 
 > recognition in out brains. mho.

Sure, but as some wise men once said, "many more Scheme programs will
be written in the future than exist in the present, so the future
programs are those with which we should be most concerned".  Or, to
put it another way, the convenience of future programmers outweighs
the inconvenience of current programmers who would have to reprogram
their brains.

--dougorleans at gmail.com