Very entertaining article, just a small remark when people count pages in Common Lisp or C++ standards, they tend to forget that standard library is also part of those pages.
Something like Python. .NET, Java also isn't far from them, when language + standard library + vm reference (if any) land in dead tree form.
I've never understood why anyone uses the number of pages of the reference document as an argument. It feels like making fun of the hard work of people put into making the reference. The bulk of the reference probably consists of minor details that can be skipped but can also be extremely helpful when you actually need them. Should we make worse references just to appease some bean counting?
Unless you're using the size of the standard as a rough measure of the complexity of creating a new implementation of the standard. If you need to provide an implementation of the standard library, then that contributes to the amount of effort required.
At least in C++ - after the initial spec, the language was literally _built_ on exploiting those minor details. A lot, if not most, of C++'s magic and its ugliness goes through those weird minor details.
Author, here. The n ≈ 163 pages figure I give for R6RS includes the standard library and description of formal semantics.
I'd like to clarify that I didn't mean to imply that larger standards are worse. Quite the opposite, actually. That's why I enjoy R6RS. As shakow pointed out, it's a means of giving a rough estimate of size. Common Lisp has much more than Scheme in terms of what's included.
Something like Python. .NET, Java also isn't far from them, when language + standard library + vm reference (if any) land in dead tree form.