Racket is not Common Lisp which is what Roswell is built for, so why bring it up here?
I've used Racket ever since it was called PLT Scheme but I've moved on to Common Lisp for the past 5 years, once I realized that there is basically nothing that Racket does better than CL, and a lot that it does worse, interactive development being the most important.
SBCL being 2-4x faster without declarations or special optimization passes (in my own code I could get 10x the
speed of Racket by doing declaration passes) is also immensely useful.
Not to mention, the thriving ecosystem around Common Lisp.
Quicklisp has helped with the explosion of popularity and there are well-maintained good libraries for the vast majority of tasks one would like to do. Most of these libraries are also portable across CL implementations which is something one doesn't see in Scheme-land (besides the lack of libraries to begin with).
But the reason I brought up Racket has to do with the Title: "A Lisp interpreter ..." The title wasn't a Common Lisp ... and I just said I found Racket to be flawless in that regard since TECHNICALLY Racket is a Lisp which I find to be better for my personal programming especially with FP, though CL has great OOP.
Shouting alone won't convince anyone.
Note that there are people who hesitate to call Racket a Scheme (http://stackoverflow.com/a/3358638/124319). I would consider Julia to be closer to Common Lisp than Scheme.
By the way, are you sure you wouldn't have talked about Racket if the title was different?
In fact this really does not matter: nobody mind if you talk about Scheme, or Haskell, or any other language. In all other threads people can't refrain from talking about Rust or D whenever someone mentions C++ (for example). However here I fail to see the link between Roswell and your comment.
> I found Racket to be flawless in that regard
With regard to installing different implementations?
> I feel like I am starting to be the Racket Evangelist
There is no bold. So your saying Racket isn't a Lisp? I think you might be on a tangent right now that isn't true. I am guessing your reacting to something different. Racket 100% is a Lisp it isn't in the group called Common Lisp but it certainly is a Lisp.
The title is 'A Lisp installer...' - not an 'interpreter'. Pay attention what it is about. The page also says: 'Roswell - Common Lisp environment setup Utility'
> and I just said I found Racket to be flawless in that regard since TECHNICALLY Racket is a Lisp
Can Racket set up a Common Lisp project? No. That's what this tool is about.
Racket is a descendant of Lisp. Not Lisp. It is nowadays its own language.
> which I find to be better for my personal programming especially with FP, though CL has great OOP.
The topic was about a new installer for Lisp, not an 'interpreter' and not 'Racket'.
Racket is great - this site even uses it - but the relevance here is near zero.
I've used Racket ever since it was called PLT Scheme but I've moved on to Common Lisp for the past 5 years, once I realized that there is basically nothing that Racket does better than CL, and a lot that it does worse, interactive development being the most important.
SBCL being 2-4x faster without declarations or special optimization passes (in my own code I could get 10x the speed of Racket by doing declaration passes) is also immensely useful.
Not to mention, the thriving ecosystem around Common Lisp. Quicklisp has helped with the explosion of popularity and there are well-maintained good libraries for the vast majority of tasks one would like to do. Most of these libraries are also portable across CL implementations which is something one doesn't see in Scheme-land (besides the lack of libraries to begin with).