Crappy Common Lisp implementations?... Did you try a few different implementations and found out they're crappy or you're just assuming things?
I never had a problem with SBCL (I didn't try others).
And about the supposed "fracturation" of implementations, first it's not a problem if you use only standardized features, second a lot of features (threads, sockets, etc) that aren't standardized are still well-supported in implementations and there are libraries that hide the minor incompatibilities between implementations.
Want threads? cl-thread. Want sockets? bordeaux-threads. Want access to the Meta-Object Protocol? cl-mop. Want generalized streams? gray-streams.
I believe the perceived problems are really blown out of proportion. Maybe CL implementations were crappy in 1995 but things change and sometimes you have to revise your assumptions.
Okay, so you're saying that Common Lisp doesn't have any problems with fractured implementations as long as you spackle over them? Common man. I'm not trying to dis Lisp. I like Lisp... well to a certain extent; it's not my favorite.
I'm just saying that if people are having a love fest on Clojure, maybe the reason Lisp never got adopted had more to do with the implementations available than the language itself.
I never had a problem with SBCL (I didn't try others).
And about the supposed "fracturation" of implementations, first it's not a problem if you use only standardized features, second a lot of features (threads, sockets, etc) that aren't standardized are still well-supported in implementations and there are libraries that hide the minor incompatibilities between implementations.
Want threads? cl-thread. Want sockets? bordeaux-threads. Want access to the Meta-Object Protocol? cl-mop. Want generalized streams? gray-streams.
I believe the perceived problems are really blown out of proportion. Maybe CL implementations were crappy in 1995 but things change and sometimes you have to revise your assumptions.