Hey there Ernie, This thread, at least from my point of view, is about a request to help a newbie with the adaptation of a software that works on a version of scheme (guile) to PLT. It kind of deviated a bit on if scheme is hard to read,which I think so, and provided a link to a lengthy argument which I agree with <a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/readable/retort-lisp-can-be-readable.html">http://www.dwheeler.com/readable/retort-lisp-can-be-readable.html</a> (Sure it's a newbie opinion, but what the heck). Keep in mind that I'm liking the language, and I am finding the experience very rewarding. But it isn't about popularity mate. I've learned ruby 3~4 years ago, here in Brazil, Florianopolis for a study at a security lab I worked for. Nothing to do with rails initially for me. I lucked out that someone released a great web framework in a language that I had familiarity with, so I began to work with that. I research languages based on merit and curiosity, not hype or popularity. I do think the syntax provided by this software (sweet-expressions) fits my mind better, and I think that it would make the process of building a case for it's adoption easier. It's not inflexibility, because if I suffered from that I would have stayed within my (popular and embarrassedly hyped) ruby/rails domain. Instead I've convinced a couple of web developers friends I know to research alternatives to make the case that ruby/rails isn't a silver bullet for web dev, and that there are great alternatives so we can present them in some lectures I'm giving at a local university (I've delegated erlyweb and seaside for them :P). Hugs mate, and thanks for the valuable opinions <div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Ernie Smith <<a href="mailto:esmith@acanac.net">esmith@acanac.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">Eduardo Bellani wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> I'm looking at sweet-expressions not as a way for me to learn scheme more easily (that would be cool, but it's not my main goal), but to teach it/showcase it to other people, because what I think the "problem" sweet-expressions fix is the readability of the code, </blockquote></div> There has been no case made at all here for the proposition 'scheme is hard to read'. The only case made so far is 'parens are hard to count without assistance'. Indenting without assistance is even harder because  tabs are invisible, spaces are variable in size and browsers move things around. Yet nobody leaps to the conclusion that this implies that Python is unreadable. Let's keep our heads and not connect from paren counting  to scheme unreadability either. The fact is, there is no need to count parens. Whether a program is readable or not depends on of how well the expression of the problem and its solution matches the existing familiar language(s) of the problem domain.  It is in those familiar languages that one gains most of the necessary understanding of the problem that needs solving. Scheme shines at that.  It can be bent to the needs of the problem domain  in order to solve the problem well and clearly.  That makes scheme eminently readable in my book. So if it ain't broke.. don't fix it. Here is the elephant in the room:  This thread is not really about readability, it is about popularity. A thundering herd of people locked into an inflexible mind set will find everything hard to read except what fits strictly inside that mindset.  Syntax sugar won't change that. Your only hope with them is by attrition, use it yourself, let them see the results and get curious. </blockquote></div> -- Eduardo Bellani <a href="http://www.cnxs.com.br">www.cnxs.com.br</a> "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary." The Talmud