"It's importance has ebbed and flowed over time." Are you talking about the importance of Lisp macros here? That's what you appear to be doing. I don't see a

"It's importance has ebbed and flowed over time." Are you talking about the importance of Lisp macros here? That's what you appear to be doing. I don't see a decline in enthusiasm for use of Lisp macros among Lisp programmers. "It's importance has ebbed and flowed over time. This is natural of language features. It was a decade ago where all the rage was template metapgrogramming in C++. Now, outside of a few library writers, most people don't touch it." The reason that few touch template metaprogramming in C++ is because it is a painful, limited, and in pretty much every way sucky experience. Many of the simplest tasks you wish to perform are either nearly impossible, or often drastically increase the amount of code you have to write. Many of us tried (present company included) and moved on because we figured out what a waste of time it was. Lisp macros, on the other hand, are a very powerful tool that can reduce the amount of code you have to write (and provide new abstractions to do useful things with, and probably at least a dozen other things I haven't mentioned). They are not perfect, and they can be abused, but they shouldn't even be mentioned with C++ templates in the same breath (unless you are talking about how much better Lisp macros are :-D ). I see your ammended statement/prediction and raise you with this one: I predict that Lisp macros will continue to be at least as important as they have ever been (at least to Lisp programmers) in the next ten years.