Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone

[chris at seberino.org]

I was talking to some Lispers yesterday and they said
Scheme does NOT have a "SYMBOL" type.  Rather, in Scheme
a symbol is "just a string" which is a good thing.  He said Common Lisp DOES
have a symbol type only for "historical reasons".

I'm not happy knowing Common Lisp is more complicated than absolutely necessary
"for historical reasons".

Lisp needs a young "Torvalds" type leader to BREAK BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY and
create the BEST LISP POSSIBLE without giving one thought to past kruft.

Perhaps Scheme is a good start for this.

Chris