Allan Wechsler <acwacw@gmail.com> Such a table fails to distinguish between programmer-defined items, and ones that are really part of the language core. I get the impression you are interested in the latter, although I confess that I'm not sure what the agenda is. Are we supposed to learn something about the languages in question? What? All Lisp dialects have an intentionally vague boundary between terms that are defined by the language, and those defined by the programmer. Another way to put this is that all Lisp programs are Lisp language extensions. I would argue, for example, that "point", which features prominently in the list above, reveals something about the application (Emacs) rather than the language (Emacs Lisp). "Save-excursion" -- even more so. In Lisp, there is no syntactic clue that infallibly singles out language primitives. What are we trying to find out? Perhaps there is a better way than just counting lemmas; or perhaps, for Lisp at least, we are asking the wrong question.
--I agree with AW (and knew that already). And all the counts by me and by Diffie are somewhat flawed due to our laziness about not really counting things "right". What am I trying to figure out? Well, there are probably many uses for keyword frequency data from real programs. But just one is: if you are trying to design a new language, then this data will be useful to you. I am on a likely fool's errand of trying to, at least sketchily, design a new language, and if you want to correspond with me about that, go ahead...