I actually get where the author's coming from.

While it's tempting to think of Racket as a Scheme implementation, and that was at one time true, the situation these days is quite different. It's a lot more accurate to say that Racket ships with a Scheme-like default language (and an actual R5RS-compatible Scheme), but that it's actually a wonderful language toolkit. Racket has the ability for individual modules to use their own syntax. Not macros; full-fledged syntax. Racket ships with several Lisp-like syntaxes, but it also ships with Datalog and ALGOL-68. And this is very much unique to Racket.

So sort of an LLVM for languages that failed to gain acceptance outside of academia?

No. See http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Racket

Not only is this wrong about Racket as soegaard points out, but it's wrong about Datalog too.

> Is it really, I know that racket is a scheme implementation

Racket is not a Scheme implementation, which is one of the reasons it is now called "Racket" (Scheme used to be part of its name.)

It is a Lisp dialect that is "a descendant of Scheme". The Racket distribution includes support for a variety of different languages (including implementations of R5RS and R6RS Scheme), but the Racket language is not a Scheme implementation.

It's got standard macros, plus all of the other "languages" that come with it, like Algol, Typed Scheme, Lazy Scheme, Honu?, and others, plus the ability to make it run languages of your own design. So, I would agree with that. Maybe not if you're strictly talking about the main language "Racket" that's run by the Racket VM.

Typed Racket, I believe?

Apart from the merits of Racket (which are considerable, you couldn't build Typed Racket in CL), the "most unique programming language in the world" is a joke about the Dos Equis ads [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Interesting_Man_in_the...

What does "most unique" even mean? Unique is by definition singular, is it not?

No. Behold, a set of unique numbers: {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 359334085968622831041960188598043661065388726959079837}

So there can be many unique things.

Also, it could be argued that the last element is the "most unique" in that it has less similarities with the other members.

A set of numbers unified by the fact that they're all unique in exactly the same way. Unique. Singular. :-)