Of course you can serve millions of users with Racket, like HN. But the JVM today is much better choice. The JVM's GC is world-class and the number of man-hours put in it is probably many orders of magnitudes more than that of Racket's.
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
FWIW, I've been staying away from Clojure because of the JVM. A lot of us are wearing the scars of the JVM battles!
[0]: https://blog.racket-lang.org/2018/01/racket-on-chez-status.h...
The difference with Python is probably bigger in programs with a big numeric part, and much smaller in programs with a lot of string. Take that number just as a general guide, not as a precise scaling factor.
Now you will.
Racket vs Python is a "common" comparison. I write the same comment once or twice per year :). (Probably because both are high level and have the batteries included. (The syntax is slightly different :) ))
https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame/...
2) People show interest in just a few comparisons (much much fewer than are currently shown).
3a) Everything-vs-everything is available, here —
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
3b) Everything-vs-everything is available, here —
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
What about the battle-tested Linux kernel? If you compile your racket apps to a native binary, you can run it directly on the Linux kernel, and benefit from 25 years of use in production! People deploy Golang and Rustlang apps everyday in prod using that approach it seems to work well for them. Note, both languages are younger than Racket.