>     Scheme and Common Lisp deal with
>     almost the same concepts. A library interface rarely needs to be
>     concerned with the parts where they diverge
>
> The differences in macros are very important too.  Few would want to
> rewrite their syntax-rules or syntax-case macros in define-macro.

Macros are mostly an internals issue, not an interface issue.

In the rare somewhat case that a library exports a macro, equivalent
syntax-rules and defmacro definitions can be given. It doesn't take that
many minutes to write a macro. Even SRFI 177 wasn't a big macro-writing
effort by any means, we spent all our time discussing the design.

Hygienic macros in CL would be nice though.

>     A significant part of library design is simply naming things.
>
> One of the reasons I decided very early not to worry too much about
> names in libraries is Scheme's excellent support for
> import-with-rename.  If you don't like some names, rename them
> yourself.  If you have conflicts, use import-with-prefix.

Ideally most programming language features should be McDonalds instead
of fine dining; people shouldn't have to do anything fancy when they are
not solving fancy problems. Consistency and good defaults matter a lot.
Scheme is a pleasure to use in part because things are named so well.

If only there was a way to convince languages to use the same names for
the same things. Perhaps it could be done with shims if there's enough
buy-in. You've invested a lot in Lojban; has that taught you any
pertinent lessons?