Well we talked about it briefly on today's Rhombus call, and the possibility of a non-parenthetical tree-based syntax is on the menu for next meeting, and I made a Wraith PR as well: https://github.com/racket/rhombus-prototype/discussions/180#discussioncomment-1828786
Thanks to the Racket folks for tolerating me jumping into the meeting at last minute and raising my concerns, and expressing support for conversation on this in the next meeting.
@cwebber Thank you also for mentioning Wisp there. I’m trying to hold off from writing more, because I’m not really deep enough in racket for that. I hope the input I could provide will be useful.
If there’s something I can help with, feel free to ping me!
@ArneBab the more time passes, the more I admire Wisp!
@ArneBab I still think the choices in Wraith are more in tune with what the Racket community wants. I myself would be perfectly happy with Wisp. But there are a couple of things, like the way for syntax looks so nice in Wraith, that mesh well with Racket-land.
@cwebber Yes, Wraith does match pretty well what’s beneficial for a language that moves into the core of Racket.
But for Wisp I have examples of real code I write to solve real problems, so people don’t just see how code looks on the happy path — and it’s readable. That’s why I hope that it can show that s-expressions are not the problem.
Also I wrote it, and I still like it 8 years later (8 years already …), so I prefer showing it :-)
