That's a perfectly valid workflow for Racket too. Startup time is pretty comparable to Python in my experience. Slow but not cripplingly so, especially if you compile it ahead of time (useful when you're done working on a file for the moment). Using the racket/base #lang instead of racket makes a big difference too. https://docs.racket-lang.org/style/Language_and_Performance.... has more on that.
>But that means the code you are working on doesn't start with a "clean slate" and instead starts with whatever state the vm is in at the moment.
That sounds more like a Common Lisp style repl than Racket's, where you typically do have to restart Racket when reloading files/modules and thus have a fresh environment. People complain about it but I prefer the clean slate style of Racket over CL.
[I think, there were a snap at some point that had problems.]
In my experience a "Hello world" program with `#lang racket/base` (precompiled) takes around 150 ms on my computer whereas Python takes about 50 ms.
> Using the racket/base #lang instead of racket makes a big difference too.
My experience has been: As soon as I use `#lang racket/base` with `(require racket/match)` for pattern matching, the startup times are as when using `#lang racket`.
The docs seem to suggest that the user can explicitly decline to save backup files?
https://docs.racket-lang.org/drracket/drracket-files.html#(p...
Presumably offers can be declined?
"When DrRacket first starts up, itlooks to see if there are any backup files still present and if so, offers to restore the backup files"
https://blog.racket-lang.org/2009/03/the-drscheme-repl-isnt-...