| But why can't I have both beauty and practicality? The core language
| definition can remain small: Common Scheme (or whatever it would be
| called) would just be a standardized set of libraries. Why is there
| no Common Scheme? I don't get it.
You might want to look at EuLisp:
Like Scheme, it's a Lisp-1 and is lexically-scoped by default
[though "Dynamically scoped bindings can be created in EuLisp,
but their use is restricted..."]. From the FAQ:
EuLisp has three distinctive features:
- light-weight processes
- an integrated [CLOS-style] object system and meta-object protocol
Why another Lisp?
Because Scheme was too little and Common Lisp was too much.
If a Lisp-2 [or Lisp-N, for N = ~6] "smaller" cousin of CL
[formal spec ~1/10th the size], also with a CLOS-like object
system, is acceptable to you, then you might prefer ISLISP:
p.s. And just for background, be sure to read:
"Critique of DIN Kernel Lisp Definition Version 1.2"
Henry G. Baker
Rob Warnock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607