And this is what /r/lisp thought about it:<p><a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/1vtueu/cl21_common_lisp_in_the_21st_century/" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/1vtueu/cl21_common_lis...</a>
Huh. These all seem like minor details.<p>I think (shameless plug) that my FSet functional collections library helps modernize CL quite a bit more than this does. I've had a couple of people tell me that FSet has changed the way they program. That's a high compliment.<p>I'd be the first to admit that FSet takes some getting used to, but if you're willing to put in the work to learn to think this way, there are substantial benefits. It greatly expands one's opportunities to write CL code in a functional style. (Those already familiar with the functional style will find it fairly natural.)
One of the annoyances of CL is the absolutely nonsense function names. Just looking at these examples, I have no idea what princ (something to do with print, i assume), getf, or elt (element?) mean.
I've always thought that CL needed a set of common libraries to be strongly recommended. The problem is that it has been tried before, but never really taken off.<p>However, given the recent rise of quicklisp for managing libraries, it's entirely possible that a project of this type will be much more successful. I hope so!<p>I still remember the first time I looked at the Alexandria library and realised I'd already implemented a good 1/4 of the functionality myself, just because it was glaringly missing from the CL core spec.