Scheme is from 1975 with huge influences from Lisp -> 48 years.
Sussman is 76, Steele is 68.
I don't think it's a only a problem of Common Lisp, which, btw., is younger than Scheme (which wasn't created completely new in a vacuum). The Scheme Report revisions upto R5RS for example ignored a lot of practical problems (no error handling, no namespaces, no object system, ...). The kludges then were outside of the language definition. But having no error handling in the language definition is not better than having one with less than ideal integration into the language. It's just a different way to deal with the problem of features which need a deep language integration: writing a larger standard with compromises or just pretend that one defines a language primarily for teaching computer science concepts (and which lacks really necessary features like error handling). The language definition then should only have as many (very dense) pages, as a student could handle in introductory course.
R6RS was an attempt to get a more complete language, which then kind of failed and was controversial amongst users and implementors.
I'd think, a to defined a language with kludges, but which tries to address practical problems, is a respectable and useful approach. Being self-aware that not everything is ideal is also nothing to look down to.
Sussman is 76, Steele is 68.
I don't think it's a only a problem of Common Lisp, which, btw., is younger than Scheme (which wasn't created completely new in a vacuum). The Scheme Report revisions upto R5RS for example ignored a lot of practical problems (no error handling, no namespaces, no object system, ...). The kludges then were outside of the language definition. But having no error handling in the language definition is not better than having one with less than ideal integration into the language. It's just a different way to deal with the problem of features which need a deep language integration: writing a larger standard with compromises or just pretend that one defines a language primarily for teaching computer science concepts (and which lacks really necessary features like error handling). The language definition then should only have as many (very dense) pages, as a student could handle in introductory course.
R6RS was an attempt to get a more complete language, which then kind of failed and was controversial amongst users and implementors.
I'd think, a to defined a language with kludges, but which tries to address practical problems, is a respectable and useful approach. Being self-aware that not everything is ideal is also nothing to look down to.