[jjwiseman]

> its just so good that we haven't needed a revision in 20 years

This is part of why I no longer use Common Lisp (after using it professionally for about 10 years). There are clear bugs in the spec, but it will never change. If your language is not progressing, it is dead.

[kennethtilton]

Nonsense. The standards process is a beast, so no one is going to kick it off for anything other than a good solid rethink. As others have noted, the language and spec are done, aka pretty much ideal. Go write some code, people.

ps. Love elsewhere a mention of "modern-style" language development. Sounds like "make it up as we go", what Lisp was doing in the sixties.

[jjwiseman]

That's right: The spec will never be revised, not because it already defines the ideal programming language (is that really your argument?), but because the effort and expense is so great.

[kennethtilton]

Maybe somewhere in between. The imperfections are so small that even a modest effort would never get undertaken. Something folks need to realize is that Lisp truly is a metalanguage: I think both Graham and Norvig knocked off quick and dirty OOP hacks when that (decent) fad came along. So it is hard to imagine what innovation might come along that would force us to get the Lisp hood up.