The only (!) thing Lisp has to do is efficiently and absolutely abstract away XML, CSS, and JavaScript. No Lisp is going to get any uptake otherwise. We could do this with Arc.
One thing it took me a while to realize about the Lisp world is why there tends not to be standard frameworks or libraries for some of this stuff. The answer is that, for certain kinds of problems (basically, anything involving metaprogramming), it's actually easier to solve your problem yourself than to learn someone else's framework and then use it to solve your problem. A good example would be unit testing... there are probably a dozen unit testing frameworks, none standard, none much used. The reason is that the frameworks don't add much value over what a programmer can easily do for himself, with all the advantages that implies. I think this may also be why web app frameworks are less prominent in the Lisp world.
This is not the case with all libraries, of course. CL-PPCRE adds huge value, to pick an obvious example, but not in the class of problem I'm talking about.
This is very different than abstracting away HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, which is where I think the real problem is.
I shouldn't have to learn 3+ of different languages (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc), AND 3+ different variations of each (Mozilla, WebKit, IE, etc), AND multiple versions of each, AND another abstraction layer (Parenscript) just for basically macros, just to write a web application.
If so, it's a fair distinction. Probably it would be more accurate if I said abstract over rather than abstract away. We can get rid of a lot of repetition this way, but not a lot of the details that remain after that. Still, that's a big deal; better than anything else I've seen by far. So while "abstract away" may be an overstatement, I think that "just lets you write HTML, CSS, and JavaScript using a Lispy language" is an understatement. It doesn't just let you write those things - you don't need Lisp to do that. Similarly, saying "just for basically macros" (my emphasis) reads like an oxymoron to me. Macros are a big deal!
If you can do better, I definitely want to know. But my definition of "better" includes being usable in a standard browser, and "usable" includes performant.
Most of lisps problems these days stem from social issues and logistical issues. The core tech is excruciatingly sound, and the language itself is great.
To someone out in the startup circles, it almost seems like Lisp and Scheme focus more on being a standard than being a pragmatic and global platform. While noble, this is not the path to massive popularity. Some people might be okay with that, but it seems to me like you could serve both goals and end up with an overall better product.
You do get that this is exactly what Lisp hackers who build web apps do?
HTML, on the other hand, is easy to abstract. I'm glad I did it in Weblocks, it saves me an enormous amount of time. ASP.NET uses this strategy (use the DataGrid control for a while, and then try coding without it).
JS is somewhere in the middle.