[brudgers]

I think tooling is only theoretically surmountable under the current incarnation of PLT and its culture [and I am not saying that this is a bad thing because that culture is extremely valuable].

By which I mean that PLT culture does not spin off the right tooling in the right direction relative to typical production operations. Racket works well with DrRacket and sorta with Emacs: compare Geiser or Hendershott's M-x racket-mode to Cider. Good luck finding out of the box integration of Racket with Eclipse, Visual Studio etc.

The reasons include, I think, the fact that consultants on mutli-million dollar contracts are not going to start with Racket. This means that 1000 hours building a tool for Eclipse that saves 10% on a $4,000,000 contract never happens. What happens instead, and it is a good thing, is that people tend write tools that solve the problems of academia, including implementation of research topics at one end and producing well formatted text on the other, and of course pedagogy on the third end [maths are not my strength, apparently].

As an example, listening to the Flatt interview, the sub-module system makes sense. The extra level of indentation for namespace construction though feels kludgey from a typing code into a box perspective because top-level concepts from the perspective of the enclosing namespace are indented - I look and ask myself, did I miss a right-banana?: The sub-module syntax is at odds with the core principles of pretty-printing as a tool. That sort of design engineering isn't a priority for PLT [and I am not saying it should be, only that it makes moving out of education less likely].

[matthewflatt]

On the subject of tools: I'd like to clarify that Scribble was not designed to solve academic text-formatting problems; it was designed for Racket documentation. It's fair to say that we subsequently improved Scribble in academic-friendly paper- and book-writing directions, but like so much of what the current Racket developers do, it was motivated by programmer experience rather than academic tasks or credit. The current developers can only work so fast, but I hope Racket continues to attract more contributors who build more tools.

On the topic of parentheses and submodules: I can understand why some consider parentheses to be an obstacle, but I'm puzzled that you've singled out their use for submodules. Syntactic forms in `#lang racket` use parentheses, and I think they've worked well in practice for submodules. That said, submodules are most powerful when you don't use them directly and instead use (or create) constructs that are implemented as submodules. For the example you have in mind, a new syntactic form may well fit better --- and maybe should be one of the many constructs that are available out of the box.