> Racket, arguably the most popular Scheme implementation

Umm, NO. Racket isnt a "Scheme implementation". Racket was a Scheme as long as they called themselves MzScheme. Then they decided that they changed too much that a complete name change was justified in order to not confuse users.

Racket isnt a "Scheme implementation" for the same reason Scheme isnt a "Lisp implementation".

From http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html -- "Racket is a Scheme". The name change was about very different things than "basic scheme routines", and it would be hard to find any basic scheme implementation without any.

Scheme is a "Lisp implementation", it's just not a "Common Lisp implementation"

Racket is its own language now, it isn't Scheme per-se. They've split apart because of disagreements over which direction the language should take.

True... it does include R5RS though, and I think it does include lot of libraries for that too.

...is this the string library you are referring to?

http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/strings.html

...or something more extensive?

I am not sure what you are getting at? More extensive? Those are basic string functions.

One man's paltry can be another man's extravagant. If you are coming from R5RS, then that Racket library would be a breath of fresh air. If you are coming from Perl, then maybe not so much.

That's the first time I hear of Racket being accused of being too small... Looking at http://perldoc.perl.org/index-functions-by-cat.html#Function... I count about 30 functions (including regexp ones); looking at the racket page I count over 50.

Also, I once got the snow yellow at over 3 meters.