Yeah, this is one of the reasons why Racket doesn't call itself PLT Scheme anymore. Scheme has procedures `set-car!` `set-cdr!` that allow you to mutate the con

Yeah, this is one of the reasons why Racket doesn't call itself PLT Scheme anymore. Scheme has procedures `set-car!` `set-cdr!` that allow you to mutate the content and the address register of a pair. Scheme has pioneered or picked up a lot of advances for making programs more functional, for example lexical scoping, closures, etc. that were not present in every lisp. What's a bit funny is that I have experience some Schemers sneer at CL for "lacking the functional elegance" and common lispers sneering at Scheme for not being a true lisp with namespacing, etc. One observation I have is, that in my career I start to see more patterns in code (they were probably there years ago but I wouldn't have recognized them). Sometimes I see monadic patterns in otherwise object-oriented code bases, or I see dependency injection realized in functional, immutable code bases. Maybe it would be time to revive the pattern movement to recompile common patterns and aim at a modern description of these. I feel like a lot could be gained []. [] Also I'll walk out of any interview were I will be asked again for the visitor pattern. so tired.