First off I want to commend the author for making this. Secondly, while I realise it says:
> If you've used other Lisps and Schemes before, you may prefer Geiser, which is very sophisticated.
I'd like to ask if there are any reasons to use this over Geiser? It's my current choice for an emacs racket mode so I'd like to know if there are any features in this which geiser is lacking.
Racket-mode's author is Greg Henderschott, creator of Cakewalk. He's active under the Racket tag on StackOverflow. Based on his comments there, Racket-mode is primarily driven by his needs, and these aren't fully met by Geiser...I think he has also used it as a way to learn more about Racket.
First, I think Geiser is wonderful and you made a great choice.
For whatever reason, as a Racket beginner some years ago Geiser just didn't "click" for me, and scheme-mode seemed to have a lot of stuff that was confusingly N/A for Racket.
Part of the motivation is I think Racket deserves a mode dedicated to it, these days, for those who may prefer that.
Although partly that's about perception, it also means freedom to do Racket-only things.
For example racket-mode has commands to tidy or trim `require`s, or even to convert a file from `#lang racket` to `#lang racket/base`, adjusting the requires as needed. It's OK to add things like this without considering and implementing whatever the analog, if any, is in Guile Scheme (which Geiser also supports).
Or more basically, racket-mode has an obvious way to "run" your program in a predictable way, much like DrRacket.
> If you've used other Lisps and Schemes before, you may prefer Geiser, which is very sophisticated.
I'd like to ask if there are any reasons to use this over Geiser? It's my current choice for an emacs racket mode so I'd like to know if there are any features in this which geiser is lacking.