>>2
Everybody writes libraries. Problem is, that's about all they do. No documentation, no maintenance, no coordination, no goal for complete, consistent frameworks, no standarization, and no unified, simple distribution.
I wish so hard we had something as cool as Python's standard library for Scheme and/or Common Lisp. A simple, consistent, complete set of tools for everything, with (preferrably) a single tool for everything. I don't want to have to lurk obscure, long abandoned, half-working servers in search for a particular library that does what another is missing, then discover it's completely undocumented and kinda broken on my Lisp. (And don't get me started on the huge set of non-standard libraries and frameworks Python has; a few are shit but many of them are awesome, simple, powerful and nicely integrated.)
The problem is, it takes a huge effort and lots of coordination and centralization to achieve this, and the Lisp community is just too small, too experimentally-oriented, too playful and too goal- and leader-less to do this.
So alternatively, I propose this: if we can't get Python's library in Lisp, we need to get Lisp in Python. So we do the following:
1. Write a Lisp dialect compiler (possibly in Python) that generates Python functions, classes, code objects and/or .pyc/.pyo files and uses Python's type system (so it'll be a lot like Scheme, with objects). (Something like Lython.)
2. Add "." syntax for attribute access (which is going to be godsend for dealing with Python objects and the standard library).
3. Add a macro facility and some Lispy utilities to it.
4. ???
5. PROFIT
6. Lisp is popular now.