[plt-scheme] Re: plt-scheme type of language

> I think the "for variables" bit is what is considered bad, not the
> more general concept of dynamic binding (which is good). To say
> nothing of delimited control, etc as addressed in that paper.

ah! thanks.

fwiw, i'm definitely on the side of "talk about the wrong stuff, too".
 arguments such as there's too much wrong stuff to discuss is, to my
ears, unfortunate in that i think it is blocking off a useful route to
teaching, and is also potentially stifling of new ideas. since i am
not myself a teacher i can say that ideally a teacher should be able
to / not be afraid of allowing some, but not too much, drift. of
course how much is subjective.

sincerely.