&quot; But I think fewer of the academic projects you mentioned than you think were developed by people based on industry needs.&quot;<p>So, I issue a retraction that&#x27;s the opposite of my prior claims: Rackets features, libraries, and tooling were all developed by academics or Racket community with feedback or justification from real-world projects (eg web servers) or use in industry. Purely Racket community working within the Racket community on day-to-day, academic or leisurely needs.<p>I&#x27;ll revisit the others on the list to see which of them might be the same.<p>&quot;And far be it from me to encourage you to stop mentioning Racket!&quot;<p>I wouldn&#x27;t anyway. You all have earned mention with the right mix of attributes in the project. :)<p>&quot;Instead, we Racketeers are all software developers, and we make Racket the language we want to program in. &quot;<p>That makes sense. Scratching an itch as the old FOSS motto goes. I did the same thing with a 4GL a long time ago. I understand the motivation. Staying with such a project for many years is an angle I apparently haven&#x27;t caught up to. Regrettably. ;)<p>&quot;The most significant Racket application at the beginning (and maybe still) is DrRacket, the IDE. Developing that has led to everything from FFI improvements to contract systems,&quot;<p>That makes sense. It looks like a very complex program. It would stretch the language into programming-in-the-large and robustness territory by itself.<p>&quot;I expect the same to be true for many other real working systems developed by academics.&quot;<p>I&#x27;ll keep it in mind. Thanks for your time and information on the Racket project.