To be clear, I'm no stranger to Lisps. I use Clojure a ton for personal stuff and on occasion have found ways to sneak it in to production. The difference ther

To be clear, I'm no stranger to Lisps. I use Clojure a ton for personal stuff and on occasion have found ways to sneak it in to production. The difference there is that Clojure isn't responsible for giving a wide enough ecosystem to justify investment, it just yoinks it from Java. Racket doesn't have that ecosystem and probably never will. Macros on the level of common lisp and clojure are already found in those places. Racket gives, and seems to base it's pitch around, a far more flexible hammer than classic lisp macros. But it doesn't do anything to offset the downsides of a small community or justify why that more powerful "actual mini language" level DSL is something to care about. I am well aware of how macros can let you add your own language features and conveniences specific to your project. Homoiconicity is an all around neat property to have. I'm just not buying a "beating the averages" style "you just see it as blub" explanation either. Mini languages do have niche uses. I acknowledge that. ANTLR wouldn't have users if they didn't. It's just not something I think is worth writing home about.