[gleenn]

I think there is this misconception that lack of activity on libraries indicates they aren't worth using. But I strongly believe a lot of libraries are just feature complete and bug-free enough to leave them be. The syntax of the language changes so minimally that libraries don't have to change at all after updates. This isn't Javascript where everyone keeps tweaking things over and over again.

[regularfry]

The problem this creates is that as a potential consumer I can't tell the difference between "effectively done" and "abandoned, half-done, and about to waste a lot of my time".

I don't see an easy answer to this because having "done" be an available state is extremely attractive, and forcing extra work on the author would be the wrong thing to do.

[gleenn]

Well, picking libraries shouldn't be done willy nilly by looking at the stars in a github repo or that they contributed 5 minutes ago. There are many curated resources that help pick libraries. Here is a great one: https://www.clojure-toolbox.com/

[jacobobryant]

Also the whole/part of the point of being hosted on the JVM is if there isn't a clojure lib for something you can just use a Java lib.

[mark_l_watson]

I agree, solid working libraries often don’t need frequent updates. Sort of Common Lisp: a lot of old very stable code that just works fine.