"Scheme's very simple syntax is based on s-expressions, parenthesized lists in which a prefix operator is followed by its arguments. Scheme programs thus consist of sequences of nested lists."
That's as uniform as it gets. Everything is the same.
https://github.com/soegaard/minipascal
Secondly, even most Schemes allow to use [ ] and { } in addition to ( ).
Did I talk about Racket anywhere?
> Does this look like S-expressions to you?
"MiniPacal implemented in Racket"
Are you really arguing that implementing some other language is the way to go?
https://github.com/eudoxia0/cmacro http://research.swtch.com/shmacro
Totally legit "C".
This is a thread about Racket, if you did not notice.
> Are you really arguing that implementing some other language is the way to go?
This is exactly what Lisps are about. You've got a nearly raw AST at the bottom (S-expressions) and then you build up a hierarchy of languages on top of it.
Is not it stupid, to have an opinion about something you do not know and do not understand?
> It's very uniform which is convenient for implementers.
It's not that uniform, really. It's so flexible that you can make it look any way you like. Any existing language syntax is a subset of this syntax.
> because this uniform soup is hard to scan and also hard to write
Just use a better text editor then.