Common Lisp certainly has plenty of warts, and the author is not the first person to attempt a rationalization.<p>The problem with any such thing is getting people to use it.  Experienced CLers have already learned how to spell &#x27;makunbound&#x27; [0] and that the argument order of &#x27;gethash&#x27; and &#x27;assoc&#x27; is inconsistent with that of &#x27;aref&#x27;, and that &#x27;+&#x27;, while generic in a sense, is not a CLOS generic function (you can&#x27;t add methods to it), etc. etc. etc.  So it&#x27;s going to be a tough sell to these people (myself included).<p>Your real audience is newcomers to the language.  But to appeal to <i>them</i> you need excellent documentation including substantial tutorial material, at least as good as what already exists for CL itself.  That&#x27;s a massive effort on top of the effort of just designing the rationalization.<p>And then you have a third problem.  While implementing your rationalization on top of CL using the package system -- so as to be able to use existing CL libraries -- is the obvious approach, the fact remains, all those existing libraries are written in standard CL rather than in your dialect.  So once a newcomer learns your dialect, if they want to read or modify any of those libraries, they will <i>still</i> have to get some familiarity with existing CL.<p>I&#x27;m not saying it&#x27;s impossible, but boy it seems like a tough mountain to climb.<p>[0] Randomly omitting letters was a bit of a thing in the old days; consider &#x27;creat&#x27; and &#x27;umount&#x27;, from a different tradition altogether.