[robinh]

Yes. Although I have no experience with Racket (so correct me if I'm wrong), the Lisps are inherently multi-paradigm languages. Haskell, on the other hand, is functional programming in its purest form. I would consider it worth learning if only for that reason, even if you don't end up using Haskell a lot.

EDIT: ...Did I just accidentally paraphrase what ESR used to say about Lisp?

[brudgers]

The way I see it is that Racket is like ANSI Common Lisp. The language (or ecosystem in Racket's case) is designed purely for practicality and not based on any purity of theory implementation. Racket gives the programmer immutable values, type safety, laziness, pattern matching and objects. It also gives the programmer all their compliments. It doesn't enforce good taste or the one true way.

[Locke1689]

If by Racket you mean the #racket language, that's not really true. It is a Scheme and embraces (and encourages) the purity of modeling that's associated with that.

[brudgers]

   #lang racket 

is just a corner of the Racket ecosystem. If anything underpins it, it's the idea of teaching computer programming and computer science research. For elegance it #:extra-constructor-name for (struct...); contracts, units, modules, collections, objects, mixins and packages (two types); and two syntaxes for Regex.

That's of course not to say that the Racketeer ethic doesn't favor elegant code. Only that language design is not ideologically bound to it.

[enupten]

You evidently have never used Common Lisp :)

[brudgers]

One word: 'loop'.

Common Lisp encourages all sorts of theory derived ideas. The community favors good looking code. But functions that start with 'n' as in "No" and the ability to redefine symbols linked to atomic values are always there for chainsaw juggling foo.

[JimmyM]

Racket is definitely multi-paradigm, it has a pretty nice line in OOP on the side. Pretty sure at least some OOP is required for any GUI stuff in Racket.