> because its not a Scheme in the strict sense; Racket does not conform to any of the Scheme reports The same could be said for many, if not most "Scheme" impl

> because its not a Scheme in the strict sense; Racket does not conform to any of the Scheme reports The same could be said for many, if not most "Scheme" implementations. Scheme didn't standardize stronger language abstraction features, otherwise what Racket offers aside its core implementation (unless they would deviate just for the purpose of lock-in) would just be Scheme libraries, and it would be fair to call it "the Racket implementation of the Scheme language, which comes bundled with more involved language libraries than most". From a marketing standpoint, their move is good for them and bad for the Scheme community because they imply that "Scheme" as a brand or community isn't able to support the languages that they are implementing. They may have the finances and manpower to make it work for them, but it leaves out the community from which they have grown. I'm not deep enough inside the community to know all the factors that lead to this but as a fringe participant it seems (more than?) somewhat untruthful and disappointing.