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

Right. My conservatism is not of the type that does not want changes. It is 
of the type that wants prudence. Not the type that denies evolution. I think 
we do not disagree too much, may be on details, but not from a general point 
of view. Jos

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Orleans" <dougorleans at gmail.com>
To: "Jos Koot" <jos.koot at telefonica.net>
Cc: "Neil Van Dyke" <neil at neilvandyke.org>; "PLT-Scheme" 
<plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: [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