Why not allow empty code blocks?

[Rustom Mody]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 9:43:03 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Rustom Mody  wrote:
> > to
> >> > teach the actual theory of programming languages (lambda calculus, lists
> >> > as a foundation unit for all other data structures), Scheme was an ideal
> >> > choice for teaching these fundamentals.
> >>
> >> People misuse language. You say that scheme was "ideal". That literally
> >> means that there is *not one single thing* about Scheme that isn't PERFECT
> >> for the task, that it reaches a faultless standard of perfection lacking
> >> all weaknesses.
> >
> > As usual you are making up definitions and being ridiculous.
> > In most common usage ‘ideal’ is used as opposed to ‘real’
> 
> Oh? So you're saying that there are other real choices for teaching,
> but Scheme is merely ideal?
> 
> The phrase "an ideal choice", if taken at face value, means exactly
> what Steven is claiming: that it is logically impossible for there to
> be any better choice, because this is the greatest idea you could
> have. It is the very definition of "better" and "worse", in that a
> better option is nearer to the ideal than a worse one.
> 
> ChrisA

Michael said: [emphasis and re-permuting mine]

> Scheme was an ideal choice FOR TEACHING THE FUNDAMENTALS: [viz.]
> the actual theory of programming languages — lambda calculus, lists
> as a foundation unit for all other data structures.
> [Whereas] Python would have been alright to teach "programming"…

And it started with me saying that MIT has switched from scheme to python
because: [MIT prof’s not my opinion] Not that python is any better at 
fundamentals than scheme but because hacking together a solution is more 
centerstage today than clarity in covering fundamentals.

IOW those guys like Michael are pitting real vs ideal