<george.t.helium@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| 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:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuLisp
    http://people.bath.ac.uk/masjap/EuLisp/eulisp.html   [FAQ]
    http://people.bath.ac.uk/masjap/EuLisp/intro.html
    http://people.bath.ac.uk/masjap/EuLisp/              [TOC]

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:
    - modules
    - 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:

    http://islisp.info/


-Rob

p.s. And just for background, be sure to read:

    http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/CritLisp.html
    "Critique of DIN Kernel Lisp Definition Version 1.2"
    Henry G. Baker

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607