The real "[Common] Lisp curse" is that once you taste it, there's no going back.
Other than that, the Common Lisp ecosystem is doing well thank you very much. Many contributors to SBCL, regular contributions to the important ecosystem libraries, vivid projects (Lem), some companies picking Lisp and somehow supporting the ecosystem (hosting conferences, contracting implementors). https://github.com/CodyReichert/awesome-cl/ · https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies/ And yes, new vibe-coded projects too. Some are useful (ICL, cl-tuition…), some reinventing the wheel (badly) went nowhere. For some, we'll see.
One positive result is that you get a lot more variation in vulnerabilities. That probably sounds negative, but it isn't.
As an example, a black hat doesn't get 70% of web sites from one shared bug in PHP. They need to target specific sites, and the exploit isn't likely to work in very many other places.
A few years ago, after ChatGPT but before agentic, I was asking AI for help with some projects. It kept recommending really good, well designed APIs, and gave me code snippets for them.
One small issue: they didn't exist! It had just hallucinated them!
Which was a real shame, since they were much nicer than the actual stuff I ended up finding.
I just realized, thinking about this now, that these days (and perhaps even back then), I could just say "ok now take this code and build the missing library so it actually works!"
Less external dependencies. I noticed Claude was vendoring (copy-pasting) Lucide icon svgs into my codebase (with proper attribution) because I was only using a small handful of them. That's awesome.
>Except when it's a license violation or in something that ends up having a security vulnerability.
What's more secure isn't so simple. If you vendor something with a vulnerability then it wont be patched. But vendoring may also mean you took the 2% of the library you need and not the 98% which reduces the surface area for vulnerabilities. And it can cut the other way - you may update a package that was previously good and is now vulnerable (regressions, supply chain attacks).
There is a balance that must be struck, and I think LLM's strike a better balance than people do. Dependencies are a convenience with a cost and LLM's can trivially copy or re-implement things that we cant.
> But vendoring may also mean you took the 2% of the library you need and not the 98% which reduces the surface area for vulnerabilities
If you aren't using a library function you're not vulnerable to exploits in that code: unused but imported code is inert (possible usable as a gadget if you're vulnerable elsewhere, but at that point you're screwed anyways) and most compilers/runtimes completely eliminate it.
> you may update a package that was previously good and is now vulnerable (regressions, supply chain attacks)
There are better mitigations to this than not using a library.
You still completely ignore the license violations.
Every time I try to get a npm based project running (or one of my forks of one), half the packages don't exist anymore or I need to spend hours fixing breaking changes.
It's usually more straightforward to just rebuild it from scratch — not to mention infinitely more satisfying — and that was true before AI!
Yes it does depend on the dependency, and a static asset is on one end of the extreme.
It depends on the "load bearing" code. Obviously something like crypto is not something we should implement ourselves but core business logic would be "load bearing" in another way and is probably not something you want to farm out to a dependency.
I've been reinventing the wheel since I started programming. Back then, we had no choice--there weren't any open-source libraries. But I also enjoy reinventing the wheel because (a) the wheel can be exactly how I want it, and (b) I get to learn and understand new things.
Coding agents have actually cut both ways for me. I can reinvent the wheel more easily and with higher quality, but I can also integrate an external library much more easily than before.
The other day I needed my system to download SFTP, so I had the agent build an SFTP client. It turned out that I actually needed FTPS, so I had the agent build that too.
Another time I wanted to integrate with Git repos, but instead of trying to reinvent that, I asked the agent to integrate libgit2. Of course, I asked it to add an API that matched the semantics of my system, so from my perspective, the wheel was exactly how I wanted it.
I think what's going to happen is that there will be more vertically integrated platforms that do it all. If you think about it, it's really annoying to cobble together a system from different libraries, each of which might have different semantics.
What we want, as developers, is to have a single, well-designed, integrated platform that exposes all the functionality we need in a consistent way. That's a lot easier now that LLMs can mold code to your exact specifications.
I'm biased, of course, because that's exactly what I'm building with GridWhale.
Same except I had open source libraries, I just somehow always had a worse time with them than just building it myself. (Just even getting them set up in the first place, or updated, and so on... most of them seem to be someone's "always have stuff to do at my job" insurance policy!)
But even if they were pleasant and did what I needed (this one time I installed a 5000 line lib that was missing 20 lines to do the thing it was actually designed to do.. like, they couldn't have added 20 more lines?!), an issue I have is spoilers.
Like, at university, they constantly said, ok here's a big problem in computer science..
(3 seconds later) .. aaand here's how we solved it! And I'm like agh, no! Spoilers! I want to figure it out, jeez!
That's also how I feel about "computer, just magick my entire program into existence." Spoils the fun of figuring it out!
Actually this is not a curse but a blessing! Being able to implement any functionality without the need to resort to dependencies is a godsend.
Yes, some dependencies are great. But unfortunately the vast majority are problematic: Not properly supported, badly tested, with unhelpful maintainers, funny licenses, undocumented and, definitely, not being able to cover your requirements 100% so you have to change your requirements to meet the dependencies instead of the other way around.
Seems a bit hyperbolic to call it a curse. Things like these are on a spectrum for all languages and languages like C and many others are afflicted by ecosystems that are more or less community driven and leverage libraries to a greater or lesser extent. Doesn't really have to do with Lisps per se.
It really applies to all languages where the very process of developing extends the language. It is the modern day variant of the Babel curse: you end up with a perfect language for your problem understood by a single individual.
I’m reminded of Chuck Moore’s practice of always reimplementing everything. There’s benefits and drawbacks to this; calling it a curse is certainly a strong opinion.
I do think the current ecosystem of open-source libraries won't survive as it is, as AI screws up the incentives too much. But agents recreating the wheel for every project isn't practical either.
What I think we'll see happen is that AI vendors will create private ecosystems for sharing code. I.e. you subscribe to Codex and you get access to a suite of libraries that speed up your development process. Behind the scenes there'll be a mirror of the how the current ecosystem works, with agents submitting bugs and feature requests and a private swarm of agents working the most popular / high priority.
I suspect it will continue as it has. Where LLM's do use external dependencies, but quite a bit less than people do. Saving it more for the things that are complex and sensitive. They aren't perfect but overall it's better than the non-agent status quo (more dependencies, less re-implementing).
Not sure about this; what would be an incentive for AI vendors to do this ? More libraries used means less tokens spent, so it runs directly against their business model.
well i can't say for the whole community but i remember someone blogging around 2010 about dropping mainstream languages for his project because all the graph libraries he found were complicated to assess and inadequate.. so he went to write his own tiny lib on commonlisp and was done in a short time.
the lisp dialect growth is also famous, it's less the case these days because people know about it, but it existed
After programming in multiple Lisp dialects over 20+ years, it’s only sorta true. The biggest problem is that “Lisp” is ambiguous. Common Lisp? Scheme? Emacs Lisp? Clojure? They are all legitimate Lisps, but they all have slightly different syntax, semantics, and standard libraries. Even among some Lisps, there are differences (notably Scheme, though Racket has helped by becoming somewhat dominant in some areas). Common Lisp helped reduce differences at the cost of supporting almost everything it was seeking to unify, and yet still has platform gaps that implementations have to fill in. But within a given Lisp, there is a lot of reuse. Racket has a large set of libs. Clojure runs on the JVM and it’s common to mix and match Clojure and Java libs.
Well, if this means I will get to write code again, even indirectly with LLMs, instead of spending my whole workday merging renovate/dependabot pull requests, then I am all for it.
LLMs stop me using open source libraries for two reasons
(1) GitHub is now full of slop. The majority of new open source libraries are now generated by AI. Many come from students who are just looking for resume garnish. Others come from devs who are more excited about being an "open source developer" than actually doing open source development
(2) With AI I can probably build something better. And if it's crap? No problem! I can just wait 6 months and rewrite it with gpt_galaxy or Claude Torah or something
At the same time I have no real incentives to contribute back. Anything I create competes immediately with a sea of slop. Any actual work I do gets identified and swallowed up by the plagiarism machine. And to be honest I only occasionally had good experiences with OSS anyway
I think we are looking at the end of open source software. Not the end of free software - in fact that may end up flourishing with LLMs and reverse engineering and the like. But the idea of programmers sharing code, for communal interest and career building, is completely dead.
>Not the end of free software - in fact that may end up flourishing with LLMs and reverse engineering and the like.
LLMs are antithetical to free software, which everyone seems to forget is as much an ethical and social movement as it is a classification of software licensing, and will be until one can examine and audit the training data of a model to exclude the possibility of including any non-free code, and until they include, document and respect the licenses for the sources they do use.
The degree to which they discourage people from actually being able to understand and modify code without an LLM also makes the code they generate implicitly nonfree. All of the freedoms of free software presuppose their utility to a human over their utility to a machine. If people aren't reading, writing and distributing code then it defeats the entire point. That's just proprietary software with extra steps.
I don't know what you call this new paradigm of vibe-coding and just not giving a damn about sources and licenses and copyright, but it isn't free software. And it's probably worth pointing out that said paradigm was created by and is most useful to corporations, not people. Using the plagiarism machine to plagiarize "the man" is still subject to the Rule of Goats[0].
Application developers don't worry about binaries produced by compilers & in due time the same will be true for code produced by coding agents. I personally do not care what the code looks like as long as it actually has the features that I want & is secure enough for my limited use cases.
It seems like there are advantages as well as problems to this situation. Notably it prevents "monoculture" in software which prevent global worms. If every website implements network protocols from scratch, it would have bugs but possibly not the same bugs and vulnerabilities as it's neighbor. The extreme is every app is its own OS - back to CP/M where running a program involved inserting a disk and turning on the machine, that "interface" had it's charm.
This is rather interesting. But it misses the point somewhat.
The problem is whether or not we want to view code as a medium of communication between other humans vs code as an abstract machine that solves a problem. We know that "programs" in the general sense are fairly objective entities that can be studied objectively, which is where the famous Sussman line about this comes from.
But as a language for expressing execution semantics that a machine can then execute to produce a desirable effect on the real world (a solution to a problem), we would not expect such code to be written with other humans in mind, and as lisp is a strictly more expressive language (both for expressing the meaning of an algorithm that other humans will be able to study and understand and that a machine can execute), and that more people who program are concerned with producing a solution to a problem, the "curse of lisp" is the logical conclusion.
But it's overblown. There exist many excellent and fairly complete libraries for Lisp: Closer MOP, UIOP, ASDF, Bordeaux Threads, etc. And no surprise, these libraries are virtually ubiquitous and considered (at least by me) to be more or less extensions to the language. And these libraries are written in a fairly readable style that anyone can go and try to understand the code.
Secondly, the curse isn't really much of a curse at all. It is more likely to yield more robust programs. The assumption that code reuse through libraries increases software quality doesn't really hold up in practice: libraries that are "complete" tend to add bloat to applications; managing different versions of libraries on the same platform leads to arguments about static vs. dynamic linking, and so on and so forth. Ever had to debug .so versioning bugs on Linux? It's not fun. And yet, that is par for the course if you try to persist in the notion that "libraries and code reuse is always better than reinventing the wheel".
As a reaction to the utter failures that have occurred due to following that ideology, entire programming communities have popped up to fight it, particularly the "Handmade Hero" that became Better Software Conferences as well as "Software Should Work". And while those people aren't a huge fan of Lisp, they really do embody the Lisp mindset of "don't be afraid of building your own system in your own solution's language". And this does usually yield nicer systems to work with because programming is theory building: bringing in different ready-made libraries introduces conflicting theories that requires even more glue code to rectify and the glue code rarely foresees all the discrepancies. And so bugs appear in the integrations between them.
That's not to say that increasing "the curse of lisp" always yields higher quality. The kinds of developers that make great software with that mindset are the ones that are allergic to inconsistency at any level and so squash bugs as quickly as possible and that is what leads their software to be better. But on the practical side of programming work, you feel a lot less inhibited in trying to fix bugs when you're certain you understand the code and how the implementor decided to map the problem domain onto the range of possible solutions. This is where the issue with LLMs comes in: if programming is theory building (which I firmly believe), then what we're really after with using LLMs to generate code is a more effective technique of translating high level theory of the problem into the low level code that executes to solve the problem. As such, maybe vibe coding can work if the vibe coder diligently keeps in their mind what they're after. But usually what that means is writing notes about the desirable properties of the resultant application. And then they're just back to theory building... just at a somewhat higher level.
In at least some cases, this is pretty clear cut. Don't roll your own crypto libraries. You may think you know what you're doing. You don't - not enough to produce genuinely secure crypto.
Don't roll your own numeric libraries. There are libraries with decades of improvements to handle corner cases and increase stability. You won't create a better one, not in one lifetime.
So, yes, in some cases code reuse through libraries really does improve software quality.
It fundamentally comes down to this question: Can I, the user of this library, produce a library that is more robust for my purpose than the existing libraries? Those who say "yes" often underestimate the amount of care needed to create code that actually works - that works solidly, that is robust against failures on certain inputs.
But, you say, you don't actually have any of those inputs, so why do you care? You don't - now. But the day may come when your program is going to have to handle those inputs, and when it does, then it's your problem, because you wrote the library.
This is called fragmentation. The advent of slop has caused many repos to stop accepting contributions, and people maintaining their own forks. I do it too, diligently maintaining repos because the original maintainers were either too slow for me, unwilling to add my features, or had moved on.
Since code is now cheap I think it is not the end of the world, but it does suck a bit for users, who may want features from multiple forks.
The real "[Common] Lisp curse" is that once you taste it, there's no going back.
Other than that, the Common Lisp ecosystem is doing well thank you very much. Many contributors to SBCL, regular contributions to the important ecosystem libraries, vivid projects (Lem), some companies picking Lisp and somehow supporting the ecosystem (hosting conferences, contracting implementors). https://github.com/CodyReichert/awesome-cl/ · https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies/ And yes, new vibe-coded projects too. Some are useful (ICL, cl-tuition…), some reinventing the wheel (badly) went nowhere. For some, we'll see.
I wrote this same concern in February: what happens when it's easier to build custom software than spend one search looking for mature libraries?
https://gavinray97.github.io/blog/llm-build-cheaper-than-sea...
One positive result is that you get a lot more variation in vulnerabilities. That probably sounds negative, but it isn't.
As an example, a black hat doesn't get 70% of web sites from one shared bug in PHP. They need to target specific sites, and the exploit isn't likely to work in very many other places.
I don't get it, in this scenario, would people also vibe code (the equivalent of) the PHP interpreter?
Yeah I guess, if they liked PHP. Could make a new version of ColdFusion if that's your thing too.
Genetic monocultures like bananas are at risk from a single species of fungus.
Even before LLMs I found building custom software to be easier than using mature libraries for almost every task. I don't think this is a new problem.
A few years ago, after ChatGPT but before agentic, I was asking AI for help with some projects. It kept recommending really good, well designed APIs, and gave me code snippets for them.
One small issue: they didn't exist! It had just hallucinated them!
Which was a real shame, since they were much nicer than the actual stuff I ended up finding.
I just realized, thinking about this now, that these days (and perhaps even back then), I could just say "ok now take this code and build the missing library so it actually works!"
Less external dependencies. I noticed Claude was vendoring (copy-pasting) Lucide icon svgs into my codebase (with proper attribution) because I was only using a small handful of them. That's awesome.
Except when it's a license violation or in something that ends up having a security vulnerability.
>Except when it's a license violation or in something that ends up having a security vulnerability.
What's more secure isn't so simple. If you vendor something with a vulnerability then it wont be patched. But vendoring may also mean you took the 2% of the library you need and not the 98% which reduces the surface area for vulnerabilities. And it can cut the other way - you may update a package that was previously good and is now vulnerable (regressions, supply chain attacks).
There is a balance that must be struck, and I think LLM's strike a better balance than people do. Dependencies are a convenience with a cost and LLM's can trivially copy or re-implement things that we cant.
> But vendoring may also mean you took the 2% of the library you need and not the 98% which reduces the surface area for vulnerabilities
If you aren't using a library function you're not vulnerable to exploits in that code: unused but imported code is inert (possible usable as a gadget if you're vulnerable elsewhere, but at that point you're screwed anyways) and most compilers/runtimes completely eliminate it.
> you may update a package that was previously good and is now vulnerable (regressions, supply chain attacks)
There are better mitigations to this than not using a library.
You still completely ignore the license violations.
Great for static assets, potentially not-so-great for "load bearing" ;^) code
Every time I try to get a npm based project running (or one of my forks of one), half the packages don't exist anymore or I need to spend hours fixing breaking changes.
It's usually more straightforward to just rebuild it from scratch — not to mention infinitely more satisfying — and that was true before AI!
Language ecosystems tend to exist on a continuum. I love TypeScript but dread the dependency management because it's so often bit-rotted.
On the other hand, I routinely build Java/JVM projects with dependencies that haven't been updated in a decade that compile without issues.
Somewhere in the middle are most languages, I think.
Yes it does depend on the dependency, and a static asset is on one end of the extreme.
It depends on the "load bearing" code. Obviously something like crypto is not something we should implement ourselves but core business logic would be "load bearing" in another way and is probably not something you want to farm out to a dependency.
I've been reinventing the wheel since I started programming. Back then, we had no choice--there weren't any open-source libraries. But I also enjoy reinventing the wheel because (a) the wheel can be exactly how I want it, and (b) I get to learn and understand new things.
Coding agents have actually cut both ways for me. I can reinvent the wheel more easily and with higher quality, but I can also integrate an external library much more easily than before.
The other day I needed my system to download SFTP, so I had the agent build an SFTP client. It turned out that I actually needed FTPS, so I had the agent build that too.
Another time I wanted to integrate with Git repos, but instead of trying to reinvent that, I asked the agent to integrate libgit2. Of course, I asked it to add an API that matched the semantics of my system, so from my perspective, the wheel was exactly how I wanted it.
I think what's going to happen is that there will be more vertically integrated platforms that do it all. If you think about it, it's really annoying to cobble together a system from different libraries, each of which might have different semantics.
What we want, as developers, is to have a single, well-designed, integrated platform that exposes all the functionality we need in a consistent way. That's a lot easier now that LLMs can mold code to your exact specifications.
I'm biased, of course, because that's exactly what I'm building with GridWhale.
Same except I had open source libraries, I just somehow always had a worse time with them than just building it myself. (Just even getting them set up in the first place, or updated, and so on... most of them seem to be someone's "always have stuff to do at my job" insurance policy!)
But even if they were pleasant and did what I needed (this one time I installed a 5000 line lib that was missing 20 lines to do the thing it was actually designed to do.. like, they couldn't have added 20 more lines?!), an issue I have is spoilers.
Like, at university, they constantly said, ok here's a big problem in computer science.. (3 seconds later) .. aaand here's how we solved it! And I'm like agh, no! Spoilers! I want to figure it out, jeez!
That's also how I feel about "computer, just magick my entire program into existence." Spoils the fun of figuring it out!
Actually this is not a curse but a blessing! Being able to implement any functionality without the need to resort to dependencies is a godsend.
Yes, some dependencies are great. But unfortunately the vast majority are problematic: Not properly supported, badly tested, with unhelpful maintainers, funny licenses, undocumented and, definitely, not being able to cover your requirements 100% so you have to change your requirements to meet the dependencies instead of the other way around.
Seems a bit hyperbolic to call it a curse. Things like these are on a spectrum for all languages and languages like C and many others are afflicted by ecosystems that are more or less community driven and leverage libraries to a greater or lesser extent. Doesn't really have to do with Lisps per se.
It really applies to all languages where the very process of developing extends the language. It is the modern day variant of the Babel curse: you end up with a perfect language for your problem understood by a single individual.
I’m reminded of Chuck Moore’s practice of always reimplementing everything. There’s benefits and drawbacks to this; calling it a curse is certainly a strong opinion.
I do think the current ecosystem of open-source libraries won't survive as it is, as AI screws up the incentives too much. But agents recreating the wheel for every project isn't practical either.
What I think we'll see happen is that AI vendors will create private ecosystems for sharing code. I.e. you subscribe to Codex and you get access to a suite of libraries that speed up your development process. Behind the scenes there'll be a mirror of the how the current ecosystem works, with agents submitting bugs and feature requests and a private swarm of agents working the most popular / high priority.
I suspect it will continue as it has. Where LLM's do use external dependencies, but quite a bit less than people do. Saving it more for the things that are complex and sensitive. They aren't perfect but overall it's better than the non-agent status quo (more dependencies, less re-implementing).
Not sure about this; what would be an incentive for AI vendors to do this ? More libraries used means less tokens spent, so it runs directly against their business model.
So this means it's a new dawn for Common Lisp, right? :)
So every Lisp developer creates their own time libraries and HTML DOM libraries because it's so easy? No. This is a myth.
well i can't say for the whole community but i remember someone blogging around 2010 about dropping mainstream languages for his project because all the graph libraries he found were complicated to assess and inadequate.. so he went to write his own tiny lib on commonlisp and was done in a short time.
the lisp dialect growth is also famous, it's less the case these days because people know about it, but it existed
After programming in multiple Lisp dialects over 20+ years, it’s only sorta true. The biggest problem is that “Lisp” is ambiguous. Common Lisp? Scheme? Emacs Lisp? Clojure? They are all legitimate Lisps, but they all have slightly different syntax, semantics, and standard libraries. Even among some Lisps, there are differences (notably Scheme, though Racket has helped by becoming somewhat dominant in some areas). Common Lisp helped reduce differences at the cost of supporting almost everything it was seeking to unify, and yet still has platform gaps that implementations have to fill in. But within a given Lisp, there is a lot of reuse. Racket has a large set of libs. Clojure runs on the JVM and it’s common to mix and match Clojure and Java libs.
the irony is the repl way of working is extremely well suited for agentic workflows. rust is nice, but lisp is hiding in plain sight
preach
Well, if this means I will get to write code again, even indirectly with LLMs, instead of spending my whole workday merging renovate/dependabot pull requests, then I am all for it.
LLMs stop me using open source libraries for two reasons
(1) GitHub is now full of slop. The majority of new open source libraries are now generated by AI. Many come from students who are just looking for resume garnish. Others come from devs who are more excited about being an "open source developer" than actually doing open source development
(2) With AI I can probably build something better. And if it's crap? No problem! I can just wait 6 months and rewrite it with gpt_galaxy or Claude Torah or something
At the same time I have no real incentives to contribute back. Anything I create competes immediately with a sea of slop. Any actual work I do gets identified and swallowed up by the plagiarism machine. And to be honest I only occasionally had good experiences with OSS anyway
I think we are looking at the end of open source software. Not the end of free software - in fact that may end up flourishing with LLMs and reverse engineering and the like. But the idea of programmers sharing code, for communal interest and career building, is completely dead.
>Not the end of free software - in fact that may end up flourishing with LLMs and reverse engineering and the like.
LLMs are antithetical to free software, which everyone seems to forget is as much an ethical and social movement as it is a classification of software licensing, and will be until one can examine and audit the training data of a model to exclude the possibility of including any non-free code, and until they include, document and respect the licenses for the sources they do use.
The degree to which they discourage people from actually being able to understand and modify code without an LLM also makes the code they generate implicitly nonfree. All of the freedoms of free software presuppose their utility to a human over their utility to a machine. If people aren't reading, writing and distributing code then it defeats the entire point. That's just proprietary software with extra steps.
I don't know what you call this new paradigm of vibe-coding and just not giving a damn about sources and licenses and copyright, but it isn't free software. And it's probably worth pointing out that said paradigm was created by and is most useful to corporations, not people. Using the plagiarism machine to plagiarize "the man" is still subject to the Rule of Goats[0].
[0]https://twitter.com/popehat/status/858722120620265473
When they have Claude Upanishads and GPT Dodecahedron we'll know the singularity is near
Application developers don't worry about binaries produced by compilers & in due time the same will be true for code produced by coding agents. I personally do not care what the code looks like as long as it actually has the features that I want & is secure enough for my limited use cases.
It seems like there are advantages as well as problems to this situation. Notably it prevents "monoculture" in software which prevent global worms. If every website implements network protocols from scratch, it would have bugs but possibly not the same bugs and vulnerabilities as it's neighbor. The extreme is every app is its own OS - back to CP/M where running a program involved inserting a disk and turning on the machine, that "interface" had it's charm.
This is rather interesting. But it misses the point somewhat.
The problem is whether or not we want to view code as a medium of communication between other humans vs code as an abstract machine that solves a problem. We know that "programs" in the general sense are fairly objective entities that can be studied objectively, which is where the famous Sussman line about this comes from.
But as a language for expressing execution semantics that a machine can then execute to produce a desirable effect on the real world (a solution to a problem), we would not expect such code to be written with other humans in mind, and as lisp is a strictly more expressive language (both for expressing the meaning of an algorithm that other humans will be able to study and understand and that a machine can execute), and that more people who program are concerned with producing a solution to a problem, the "curse of lisp" is the logical conclusion.
But it's overblown. There exist many excellent and fairly complete libraries for Lisp: Closer MOP, UIOP, ASDF, Bordeaux Threads, etc. And no surprise, these libraries are virtually ubiquitous and considered (at least by me) to be more or less extensions to the language. And these libraries are written in a fairly readable style that anyone can go and try to understand the code.
Secondly, the curse isn't really much of a curse at all. It is more likely to yield more robust programs. The assumption that code reuse through libraries increases software quality doesn't really hold up in practice: libraries that are "complete" tend to add bloat to applications; managing different versions of libraries on the same platform leads to arguments about static vs. dynamic linking, and so on and so forth. Ever had to debug .so versioning bugs on Linux? It's not fun. And yet, that is par for the course if you try to persist in the notion that "libraries and code reuse is always better than reinventing the wheel".
As a reaction to the utter failures that have occurred due to following that ideology, entire programming communities have popped up to fight it, particularly the "Handmade Hero" that became Better Software Conferences as well as "Software Should Work". And while those people aren't a huge fan of Lisp, they really do embody the Lisp mindset of "don't be afraid of building your own system in your own solution's language". And this does usually yield nicer systems to work with because programming is theory building: bringing in different ready-made libraries introduces conflicting theories that requires even more glue code to rectify and the glue code rarely foresees all the discrepancies. And so bugs appear in the integrations between them.
That's not to say that increasing "the curse of lisp" always yields higher quality. The kinds of developers that make great software with that mindset are the ones that are allergic to inconsistency at any level and so squash bugs as quickly as possible and that is what leads their software to be better. But on the practical side of programming work, you feel a lot less inhibited in trying to fix bugs when you're certain you understand the code and how the implementor decided to map the problem domain onto the range of possible solutions. This is where the issue with LLMs comes in: if programming is theory building (which I firmly believe), then what we're really after with using LLMs to generate code is a more effective technique of translating high level theory of the problem into the low level code that executes to solve the problem. As such, maybe vibe coding can work if the vibe coder diligently keeps in their mind what they're after. But usually what that means is writing notes about the desirable properties of the resultant application. And then they're just back to theory building... just at a somewhat higher level.
In at least some cases, this is pretty clear cut. Don't roll your own crypto libraries. You may think you know what you're doing. You don't - not enough to produce genuinely secure crypto.
Don't roll your own numeric libraries. There are libraries with decades of improvements to handle corner cases and increase stability. You won't create a better one, not in one lifetime.
So, yes, in some cases code reuse through libraries really does improve software quality.
It fundamentally comes down to this question: Can I, the user of this library, produce a library that is more robust for my purpose than the existing libraries? Those who say "yes" often underestimate the amount of care needed to create code that actually works - that works solidly, that is robust against failures on certain inputs.
But, you say, you don't actually have any of those inputs, so why do you care? You don't - now. But the day may come when your program is going to have to handle those inputs, and when it does, then it's your problem, because you wrote the library.
This is called fragmentation. The advent of slop has caused many repos to stop accepting contributions, and people maintaining their own forks. I do it too, diligently maintaining repos because the original maintainers were either too slow for me, unwilling to add my features, or had moved on.
Since code is now cheap I think it is not the end of the world, but it does suck a bit for users, who may want features from multiple forks.