> The language seems designed to encourage you to be you and to shape the language to suit your individual style, problem domains, or interests.
This is cool for the solo programmer.
Teams and organizations need some amount of standardization if they want their programmers to be able to maintain each others code. At that point, none of the coolness of Lisp remains, and you're better off using a less dynamic language that imposes more of a standard style.
It's not necessarily so. It works also for groups. Example: at a time when 'object orientation' was still kind of new (early 80s) lots of Lisp-using groups were developing OO-extensions for Lisp: Flavors, LOOPs, CommonObjects, ObjectLisp, ... These language extensions were used in groups at TI, Xerox, HP, Symbolics and others. For example Symbolics wrote much of their operating system and their applications using Flavors (-> several groups of people used it as a standard language extension -> incl. their customers).
With the Common Lisp standardization, a subgroup was given the task to decide on a standard object-oriented extension or to develop their own. After several years of work, a core group with a large group of supporters and implementors then defined a standard language extension to integrate object-object-oriented programming in Common Lisp - the Common Lisp Object System, which is now widely used in Lisp.
Not sure why i’m getting downvoted. When I come back to a project 6 months after I last touched I might as well have never heard of it for all I remember.
This is cool for the solo programmer.
Teams and organizations need some amount of standardization if they want their programmers to be able to maintain each others code. At that point, none of the coolness of Lisp remains, and you're better off using a less dynamic language that imposes more of a standard style.