> I think the post was more about syntax, not standard library
If that is so, it has no point.
The bulk of the 1153 pages of the Common Lisp standard is in fact describing a standard library, so if the definition of "large language" is one that has a large core syntax, excluding standard library, then it's a small language, in fact.
Most of the syntax of a typical Lisp dialect (Common Lisp included) takes the form of a standard library. If you seen an unfamiliar syntax, it consists of a form with an unfamiliar symbol in the leftmost position:
(unfamiliar-symbol ... stuff (you (do not)) understand)
You search your help resources for "unfamiliar-symbol".
The lexical syntax ("read syntax" in Lisp terms) is quite very small. It consists of elements like what constitutes a symbol token, what numeric and other constants look like, and other such elements. Stuff like:
#(this is a vector)
#c(3.0 4.0) ;; complex number 3.0i + 4.0.
`(quasi ,quote)
'(quoted list)
package::symbol
If that is so, it has no point.
The bulk of the 1153 pages of the Common Lisp standard is in fact describing a standard library, so if the definition of "large language" is one that has a large core syntax, excluding standard library, then it's a small language, in fact.
Most of the syntax of a typical Lisp dialect (Common Lisp included) takes the form of a standard library. If you seen an unfamiliar syntax, it consists of a form with an unfamiliar symbol in the leftmost position:
You search your help resources for "unfamiliar-symbol".The lexical syntax ("read syntax" in Lisp terms) is quite very small. It consists of elements like what constitutes a symbol token, what numeric and other constants look like, and other such elements. Stuff like: