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

From: Jos Koot (jos.koot at telefonica.net)
Date: Mon Apr 7 19:08:39 EDT 2008

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 

Posted on the users mailing list.