I've been writing a bit of elisp and using docstrings and looking things up with C-h f and C-h v has made coding so much more dynamic for me (coming from C++)

I was thinking about trying a Scheme to do things outside of the Emacs bubble, but (and I feel like I'm probably wrong about what I'm about to say..) there doesn't seem to be proper in-code documentation like in Elisp.

Racket has Scribble which seems like an kinda ugly org-mode haha. It's more S-expression-y (though I'm not sure what purpose that serves) and I'm sure it generates great HTML pages it but it doesn't binding a description to a function/variable like docstrings - . It's also rather ecosystem-y and tied to one language so I'd rather stick with org-mode for literate stuff I'm writing.. but maybe I'd miss some features that way?

Looking at the Racket code the in-code documentation are just sparse comments: https://github.com/racket/racket7/blob/master/racket/src/racket/src/mk-uchar.rkt

Chicken seems to have a bit more structure ex:

(define (rewrite-c-w-v db classargs cont callargs)
;; (call-with-values <var1> <var2>) -> (let ((k (lambda (r) (<var2> <k0> r)))) (<var1> k))
;; - if <var2> is a known lambda of a single argument
(and (= 2 (length callargs))

.. etc.

But the actual documentation I think is separately maintained in HTML. Is that just the workflow with Scheme? Code in one window and docs in the browser? Or can I recreate my elisp workflow somehow? And tangentially - Scribble v. Orgmode.. what's the advantage?

EDIT:

http://www.nongnu.org/geiser/geiser_3.html#Autodoc-and-friends

Looks like GNU Guile supports docstrings, while with Chicken/Racket you're stuck with having to use the HTML and only seeing the functions/variables/etc that come with the language