Well, only if you're stuck with a broken macro system (cough cough Common Lisp cough cough). Here in scheme, we have er-macros and sc-macros, as well as syntax-rules. Hygene matters, and procedural macros rock, although you want declarative for the simple things. pg really made the wrong call on that, and it will probably haunt arc for years to come.
I haven't got a horse in this race.
maclisp -> Common Lisp
-> Eulisp (Eulisp took a lot of inspiration from Common Lisp)
-> Common Lisp
Scheme -> Racket
-> Common Lisp
This compatibility does not exist anymore. Interlisp is gone. Scheme is now its own language universe. PLT Scheme was renamed to Racket to prevent users from thinking Racket cares about compatibility with Scheme.
What was once a language group with dialects of a core language, is now not more than a bunch of ideas, where independent language camps pick/mix freely whatever they find important. For all practical work (!) they are now fully incompatible. Some languages still have a common core (Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp, ISLisp, Visual Lisp), while others have new cores: Scheme and Clojure are cores of new languages, with their own syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Neither of those cares about any form of compatibility or code sharing anymore.
No, PLT Scheme was renamed to Racket to reflect the fact that the base language does not (and had not even prior to the rename) really target compatibility with any of the scheme standards, though using its module language approach, Racket includes both R5RS and R6RS Scheme implementations, so its not at all the case that Racket doesn't care about Scheme compatibility, its just bigger than just that.
Racket, as an environment, has compatibility due to its module/language approach to a bunch of languages. The older Scheme R5RS / R6RS are amongst those.
> Racket is a full-spectrum programming language. It goes beyond Lisp and Scheme with dialects that support objects, types, laziness, and more. Racket enables programmers to link components written in different dialects, and it empowers programmers to create new, project-specific dialects. Racket's libraries support applications from web servers and databases to GUIs and charts.
The main language under development aren't those, it's Racket:
http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html
> They draw you in with the promise of a simple and polite little Scheme, but soon you'll find yourself using modules, contracts, keyword arguments, classes, static types, and even curly braces.
> programmers can now simply say “Racket” to refer to the specific descendant of Scheme that powers PLT's languages and libraries.
There is a specific new language, a descendant of Scheme, in which this stuff is written, and that is called Racket.
This Racket language and its main libraries is documented here:
https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/index.html
See also:
> Shriram Krishnamurthi
> Racket is Racket. It's its own language.
> I'm not quite sure what "Lisp family" really means, given that even Common Lispers and Schemers seem to argue more than agree (maybe because they're close family members?). Given that Sussman argues that Scheme is also a descendent of Algol, doesn't that put Racket in the Algol family as well? So Racket is both an Algol and a Lisp; would you change your posting to say “picks Algol to teach son programming”? In short, do these labels tell us anything useful at all?