racket doesn't have any less of a solid integration into emacs (racket-mode) and visual studio code (magic racket) than most other languages.
Magic racket is very bare bones and can't compare to integrations like Calva [3].
So I saw someone down voted me... just to be clear, I use Racket despite having to work against a poor tooling experience, when comparing to say, CL or Clojure.
I want Racket to succeed in industry, so is not like I'm complaining. I'm pointing out what I think is a weakness, maybe a blind spot by the team, since they seem to be very attached to Dr Racket!
My point is that would be ideal if the core Racket team also participated in polishing the IDE integrations, other than Dr Racket.
1: https://www.greghendershott.com/2019/07/future-of-racket.htm...
On the third hand, I spent all that time, so wrt "bus factor 1", there will be no pleasing you. :)
Thanks for all your work on the racket ecosystem!
But on the other hand, many things from DrRacket can be reused as modules in the language server, so the work that goes into it is not “lost” for the ones that don’t use it directly.
Also, what’s the biggest feature you miss from Magic Racket (and the language server by extension)? As far as I’m aware, the language server project doesn’t have a fixed set of goals and it grows rather organically. Maybe they would make use of this kind of feedback.
Should MR work fine with other langs? I don't think it is stated on the docs anywhere if this is a supported feature. For instance, if I open a .scm (Scheme) file, Ctrl-P to switch to lang (MR mode) and launch a REPL, is it supposed to work fine?
what i was thinking of is most languages. having used various ides for python, elixir, and f#, i have been rather unimpressed with IDE offerings from these languages. dr. racket is indeed nice and easy to use but is rather frustratingly un-performant. clojure's IDEs look so nice and clojure is very enticing, but i just don't want to live on the jvm and in java land.