Scheme vs. CLisp: THE ULTIMATE BATTLE

Alright fellow sinister /prog/s, which is superior, Scheme or Common Lisp?

VOTE NOW

Did I mention that it's possible to make a hygienic macro system in CL? Pascal Constanza has an example on how to implement it http://p-cos.net/documents/hygiene.pdf
As for the retained names for compatiblity purposes. Doesn't Scheme also have car/cdr/cadr and others? The "modern" names are first/rest/second. I don't think of this as a major problem with the language. If you want a cleaner Lisp, just make your own package and import what you want from CL, and write what you want yourself.

<Riastradh> eli, hey, cool, Pascal Costanza has figured out that you can implement a hygienic macro system on top of an unhygienic macro system without writing a code walker: <http://p-cos.net/documents/hygiene.pdf>;. All you have to do is replace all of the binding forms such as LAMBDA...
*Riastradh coughs.
<Riastradh> I like this line: `To keep things manageable, we have not reimplemented all of Common Lisp, but restricted ourselves to ISLISP, which is mostly a small but non-trivial subset of Common Lisp.'

Scheme has c[ad]+r and the 'modern' names in SRFI 1, but car and cdr are useful because they are meaningless and don't imply the cons is part of a list.