[racket] Poll: Does anybody besides Doug use 'plot'?

> On the other hand, if you want Racket to be an exercise and showcase for perfect backward compatibility, that might be interesting.  Perhaps someone can find
> some novel techniques to help do that, and some way of demonstrating the contribution (seamless backward compatibility throughout evolution, without some cost
> that systems traditionally incur to satisfy that).
>

I've always wondered if simply writing a translation layer between version N and N+1 would be enough. If a translation layer existed for every new version then
any old version could simply be transitioned between all intermediate layers. Of course that gets expensive as time goes on so you could eventually write
translation layers between larger gaps, like N to N+10.

Does any system actually do that?