# Differences with other lisps? **URL:** \ **Category:** General\ **Created:** [November 14, 2021, 5:07pm UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/differences-with-other-lisps/124 "2021-11-14T17:07:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 5
**Author:** ![slaymaker1907](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@slaymaker1907](https://racket.discourse.group/u/slaymaker1907)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2021, 12:56am UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/differences-with-other-lisps/124/5 "2021-11-24T00:56:28Z")
Racket has a pretty unique compilation model for macros as well. It is much more strict than other languages about leaking information between phases. Related to the phase system, Racket has a strict module system. You cannot detect if a module is loaded or not without loading said module. Racket supports submodules which allow one to load the containing module without loading the submodule code. Racket allows non-hygienic macros which still maintain hygiene except where explicitly broken since identifiers have an associated scope that can be set. I think R6RS also has this, but I don't think it is quite as powerful as Racket's macro system. Unlike older versions of Scheme, Racket uses delimited continuations as opposed to only providing call/cc. You can implement delimited continuations on top of call/cc, but Racket provides first class support for delimited continuations. --- _[View the full topic](https://racket.discourse.group/t/differences-with-other-lisps/124)._