>>25
but it's considerably simpler than Scheme's macro machinery.
You're saying this as if it were something good.
There's the complexity of the problems you want to solve. If the complexity of your tools is lower than that, it only means that the excessive (and usually much amplified) complexity is pushed to your code -- or that your code does not solve the problem acceptably.
Also, I don't get it: you guys should be ashamed of your inability to understand "complex" things. That means that you're stupid. Instead you're kind of proud of your deficiency.