I think you mean to say that Kernel doesn't need to implement macros because they can be built using $vau.
---
Besides that, I think you're overstating its significance.
a) Maxwell's equations don't claim to be 'most fundamental'. They are a concise basis set for a space of problems. They occupy a memetic sweet spot; abstractions both above and below them are more verbose. The metacircular interpreter of Kernel can't compete with McCarthy's version.
b) Any language with fexprs is 'as fundamental' as Kernel. Including LISP 1.
c) In its search for hygiene Kernel eliminates quote. Scheme folks will likely find this a useful tradeoff, while common lisp folks with their backquoted macros will shudder. In kernel you 'create macros' by explicitly consing code.
I concede your point about Maxwell's equations. Their historical significance in particular is the unbelievably rich research that ensued from its implications.
By this metric, Lisp is obviously the analogue in the programming world. It would have been nice though if Lisp had triggered a sudden paradigm shift instead of this painful 50 year burn we're living through.
"The metacircular interpreter of Kernel can't compete with McCarthy's version."
First, it doesn't cover macros, while Kernel subsumes functions and hygienic macros with a single construct. Second, I don't think a toy version of a Kernel metacircular evaluator would be much more complex than the toy McCarthy evaluator.
"Any language with fexprs is 'as fundamental' as Kernel. Including LISP 1."
Only if said language is lexically scoped, and fexprs receive the lexical environment in which they are called as parameter, as in Kernel. Otherwise you'll miss hygiene.
Yeah I'd like to see a toy version of a Kernel metacircular interpreter.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider 'better supports hygiene' to imply 'more fundamental'. It doesn't add new capabilities. It merely prevents certain kinds of errors.
---
Besides that, I think you're overstating its significance.
a) Maxwell's equations don't claim to be 'most fundamental'. They are a concise basis set for a space of problems. They occupy a memetic sweet spot; abstractions both above and below them are more verbose. The metacircular interpreter of Kernel can't compete with McCarthy's version.
b) Any language with fexprs is 'as fundamental' as Kernel. Including LISP 1.
c) In its search for hygiene Kernel eliminates quote. Scheme folks will likely find this a useful tradeoff, while common lisp folks with their backquoted macros will shudder. In kernel you 'create macros' by explicitly consing code.