Brian Adkins wrote on 02/24/2016 02:49 PM:
it appears to me that Racket is the strongest of the Scheme-ey lisps, so that's where I'm investing my time.
After maintaining my open source packages on ~10 different R4/5RS+SRFI-ish Scheme implementations, I came to a similar conclusion: now I just develop in straight Racket, taking advantage of all the Racket libraries and tools.
I do keep a few other Schemes in mind as diversity backups, in case I ever need the special properties of one for a particular project. So, in that way, I'm glad when the other Schemes have active user communities, even though would be also nice to have those people more involved in Racket. And some of them kindly maintain ports of some of my Racket packages.
Maybe some Racketeers would scout Gambit, Chicken, Bigloo, Guile, etc., communities for any useful packages that Racket doesn't yet have, and talk with the package authors about whether they'd be interested in somehow also having those packages in Racket. That might give Racket the benefit of more packages and engagement, while also maintaining a healthy diversity -- not everything Scheme needs be governed by the shadowy but benevolent Racket cabal.
Neil V. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
