This makes it sound as if there are no modern lisps.
What's the big deal of using a lispy language? Do other languages really need to desperately try to reimplement features that come more naturally to lispy languages? Are parentheses (only the round ones) really that much of a deterrent to motivate excessive work like that?
I'm very happy with Guile and Racket.
It seems to me that very few companies use Lisp-like languages used in production. Even Haskell seems more common.
The big deal with using Lispy languages is that companies don't want to use them -- it's a lot easier to hire developers who know other languages. So, I'm stuck with Java whether I like it or not, and I appreciate any functional programming features that can be packed in to new Java releases, even if they end up being a bit clunky.
The reason why adoption concentrates on a few languages is mostly network effects rather than objective features of the language itself.
Maybe it's time for us to think about how to increase the adoption of languages rather than trying to bolt every feature onto java just because there is a lot of java code and devs. We're going to be stuck in a never-ending mess of complication and legacy.