[kettunen]

Personally I feel that Scheme (Racket or some other implementation) is in many ways better language compared to e.g. Common Lisp. Simpler and more intuitive (at least IMO) compared to Common Lisp which is in scale of Java or C++ when it comes to the size of the standard/language. This can be of course explained due to the nature of Common Lisp and how its, according to its standard's author, more about politics than art, since when Common Lisp was being planned they needed to accomodate many features from many different Lisps before it. But despite that, when it comes to real-world code, in my own experience, Common Lisp and especially SBCL takes the cake.

[lispm]

Racket has easily the size & complexity of Common Lisp.

https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/index.html

I would think that it has roughly 4000 identifiers in the Racket language.

See the index: https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/doc-index.html

Common Lisp has <1000 exported symbols in the "COMMON-LISP" package.

> when Common Lisp was being planned they needed to accomodate many features from many different Lisps before it

Common Lisp is mainly a slightly modernized & portable version of Lisp Machine Lisp, the feature influence of other Lisp dialects is not that big. The main difference is that Common Lisp provides lexical bindings and lacks a few features.