Could u provide your opinions on the racket language
Strengths
1.Educational Value
2.Simple and consistent syntax
3.Promotes Language-Oriented Programming
4.Robust Standard Library
5.Strong Support for Functional Programming
Critisms
1.Horrible interactive Experience
...Just talk about it a little i need a kick start to do my Project >:
So what's your project?
It's on Racket language. A detailed research talking about it. I don't have any previous experience.. We need to submit a extensive research talking abt it and talk and it during our lecture to the prof
I'm assuming our usual practice of "we'll help, but we won't do homework for you" applies to Discourse, too?
Sadly yes they want us to do the extensive research and we will be graded accordingly
I think probably the best way to start would be to get a small amount of experience actually using the language. Perhaps you should download DrRacket and spend a few hours working through https://www.htdp.org/ ?
My complaints are:
Lack of inlay hints: Function Parameter/Field Name Virtual Text Inference · Issue #29 · jeapostrophe/racket-langserver · GitHub
I wish the docs linked to the source code
Needs way better debugger support, current one is very clunky
Ultimately these are problems more to do with lack of man power than it is with the language itself? The language it self is ok, it's the legacy things that are an issue
good and bad:
My idea are not just with Racket, but about Scheme , Lisp:
the positive things are the functional programming it allow
the lack of typing ,yes ,this really save time ,not having declaring the type of variables
the limits are:
too much way to define variables , should be like Python, C....
not way to index arrays,vectors,strings with [ ] like in Python, C...
no infix support for,at least math expressions, making it a bit ugly (the good, the bad.... 
)
for all those reasons i develops Scheme+