I think macros do have certain disadvantages (they make debugging seem to look harder, more syntax, etc, ...).
But I find things like extensive use of MOP also make maintenance of programming more challenging.
Common Lisp has never tried to take away 'power' from users.
Scheme had a different philosophy: reduce everything to the most basic and pleasing constructs. But that approach has its own disadvantages - if one arrives at the bottom of programming language constructs, working 'upwards' is a problem.
Take for example the argument lists: Common Lisp has things like keywords, optional and rest arguments. Plain Scheme only has rest arguments. Adding other argument interpretation is possible, but is only really use if the language would support it and would make use of it.
But I find things like extensive use of MOP also make maintenance of programming more challenging.
Common Lisp has never tried to take away 'power' from users.
Scheme had a different philosophy: reduce everything to the most basic and pleasing constructs. But that approach has its own disadvantages - if one arrives at the bottom of programming language constructs, working 'upwards' is a problem.
Take for example the argument lists: Common Lisp has things like keywords, optional and rest arguments. Plain Scheme only has rest arguments. Adding other argument interpretation is possible, but is only really use if the language would support it and would make use of it.