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.
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
Indeed.