The question was how do they compare. 90% of your list applies to CL as well. (CL has sheeple as its prototype based Object system). The statement about macros

The question was how do they compare. 90% of your list applies to CL as well. (CL has sheeple as its prototype based Object system). The statement about macros is more nuanced that you let on, language decisions like being a Lisp-1 w/o a symbol namespace (CL packages) make hygiene a necessity which in turn complicates writing macros. One thing I do like about racket is that it comes with support for writing pattern directed macros, that although possible to write in CL has no built in tools for it. Another point for racket is that it has support for macros with better error reporting (ej the elipsis). 15 is really the main selling point for racket. It is a Language creating toolbox (I forget the term they use for it). It's module system stands out in that regard compared to CL, which has read tables as a way to customize the reader. Racket's solution is more general and extensible in that regard. 16 is not true when compared to CL. The IDE of racket is way behind slime/sly, however it doesn't require setup. The other big difference is that CL is image based and suited for interactive development while Racket is batch oriented, 'python-style' of interactivity. If you come from Python you will think racket is interactive, but if you come from smalltalk you'll know what you are missing. As Aiden said, both are great languages, flip a coin.