[racket-dev] racket vs. scheme vs. clojure (as it appears to others)

From: D Herring (dherring at tentpost.com)
Date: Sun May 1 03:20:30 EDT 2011

On 04/29/2011 12:10 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
>>   "Scheme" is usually a liability when someone used it in school years ago (other than with HtDP).
> Sad.

but true.  Exacerbated by lecturers who refused to keep up with the 
world around them, thus projecting their failings onto their language 
of choice.  It took me several years to forget and some very 
"made-for-lisp" coding projects at work before I gave lisp a second 
try.  The PLT logo still messes with my subconscious.

You might emphasize that Racket is a "new language, borrowing the best 
parts of Scheme (and other languages?) and extending it with these 

Put a big "What is Racket?" link on the Racket home page.  Fill it 
with features and promise.  (c.f. http://qt.nokia.com/ or 

Also collect a set of "cool" programs for people to use.  It is easier 
for people to understand "this was implemented in Racket" than 
"Racket's features might let me make that".  Many people make 
decisions based on first impressions.  When I was an undergrad, I 
preferred "Clean" over the ML languages largely because the former had 
a side-scrolling game demo...  Here's another anecdote.

- Daniel

Posted on the dev mailing list.