For what you're missing probably mostly just what is described in the "Escaping the Hamster Wheel of Backwards Incompatibility" section. Racket itself is a more

For what you're missing probably mostly just what is described in the "Escaping the Hamster Wheel of Backwards Incompatibility" section. Racket itself is a more reliable and stable language than many, maybe most, but common lisp is on another level with that shit. It has good and mature libraries for nearly everything, where racket has them only for most things. Also if you know you ultimately need to deploy a native binary and only a native binary will work, common lisp historically produces alarmingly fast native binaries. I haven't needed to use this in racket much so I can't directly compare; it doesn't seem to prioritize perf but still seems to be much faster than other languages that don't prioritize perf. I definitely prefer racket though. It's a bit clunky in places too but is overall much better planned and still has all the extensibility benefits.