Well, I for some practical application lisp/racket could be a better choice. If we categorize lisps/schemes/haskells as "not for real world use" too easily we w

Well, I for some practical application lisp/racket could be a better choice. If we categorize lisps/schemes/haskells as "not for real world use" too easily we won't enjoy nearly as much innovation. I also believe it's undeniable that parts of these languages would be a godsend in some more "real world" languages. There are two sides to the argument, however I'd like to caution against dismissing languages as "not for real world use" too quickly since it's a trend I've seen.