Comparing CL to C++ isn't very fair. That's like comparing a quartz-watch with multiple displays and a set of carefully laid-out knobs to a mad hairball of debr

Comparing CL to C++ isn't very fair. That's like comparing a quartz-watch with multiple displays and a set of carefully laid-out knobs to a mad hairball of debris which will sting you every time you try to pick it up / comb it / whatever. And OK, maybe their formal descriptions both will run similar length. But it's not a fair comparison. Size isn't all, what it really is is comprehensibility. Perception of its essence. If the foundations are solid, if you don't have a feeling that it might just be an ad hoc contraption mucked up by the devil himself to make people suffer, if it feels like you don't have to fight it every step of the way, if you don't get nauseous just by thinking about it, you just might as well stroll through it, no matter the pathwalk length. Maybe a better question is, what's really extraneous? You know, with CL, I can't immediately tell. The Scheme folks have an idea. But Scheme and CL still look like a pair of siblings nonetheless. Or maybe an even more fundamental question is: "is it well-designed"? Or maybe "does it provide depth without imposing unnecessary complexity"? There are plenty of questions, but the size one is quite boring, honestly.