[dataangel]

I think you're massively overstating your case when you say "optimal." There is no evidence anything CL provides is optimal according to any rigorous metric. I could very easily claim Scheme is "more optimal" since it's a much more minimal implementation with the same capabilities. Also I think you are mistaken to equate fewer symbols with easier to reason about symbols, e.g. I find it much easier to reason about complex programs when they are written in a strong static type system, which CL lacks. The type system lets me leverage the computer to help me reason about the program, by type checking.

[enduser]

Then the computer is doing the reasoning, not (just) you. Static typing will certainly help you reason about a larger system, I do not dispute that. I am talking about increasing the capability of the largest symbol system you operate on in your mind without relying on the computer. If the meaning-density of the symbols is higher, your effective intelligence goes up.