Toy this, toy that

I notice you smart CS types speak of toys. Toy compilers, toy languages. Is there some consensus as to what it means? At what point is something in programming *not* a toy?

Non-toy languages have several defining characteristics:

1. Good library support.
2. Several features that encourage real world usage e.g.
- Bugfree/mature implementation
- Good performance, especially for critical things like I/O
- Easy to program in

3. High adoption by for-profit and notable non-profit organizations
4. Most language features similar to other non-toy languages.
5. Large user base with a variety of opinions about the language.

Where does CLisp fit in? Somewhere between toy and non-toy, closer to the toy side.