Common Lisp does every last thing you mention (Score 1)

I'm looking forward to somebody starting over some day and coming up with a language that supports generic programming as well as C++, but which doesn't have the terrible syntax of C++ templates. It must be possible.

Yup. Common Lisp does all that plus everything you reference below... To keep this short(er), search slashdot for Kent Pitman and read his two-postings interview about Lisp. Go to www.paulgraham.com and download his free book On Lisp. Download GCL, CLISP, CMUCL, or Xanalys' or Franz's personal editions and work through every example in Paul's book, typing it in running it until you understand.

Common Lisp compiles to very fast code, Xanalys offers unlimited runtime distributions and, I've been told, very flexible support for what's included in the runtime.

On Lisp changed my programming worldview. I've been programming STL for years but now see large parts of it as an attempt to bring a small part of Lisp to C++. STL succeeds in that, and I do enjoy STL programming. However, why not just use Common Lisp which has all that and much, much more?

...templates can can be used to create programs that run at compile time to do some very clever optimizations

Lisp does that...

But the code to make this stuff happen is ATROCIOUS!

Not in Common Lisp, it's not. Define a macro instead of a function and selectively add backquotes and commas. Otherwise, it's plain old normal CL.

I think what is needed is a new language that will put compile-time and run-time code on equal footing. It would be great if they had the same syntax. ...

Lisp does that.

...say something Lisp-like...

You mention Lisp but you don't mention that Lisp does everything you're asking for. Hope I'm not boring you, and there's probably someone else who didn't know Lisp does all this. In addition, I know that Xanalys in particular (as probably do all the others, with whom I have less direct experience) makes calling OS functions nearly trivial. I've not yet tried callback functions under Windows. Your mileage may vary. I am not associated with Xanalys although I did just buy their Lisp because of the unlimited runtime distribution. I learned Lisp using GCL under Linux. I am not a lawyer. I ....

Sounds to me like it's time for some new language stud to come and save us.

Sound to me like it's time to pay attention to the old language studs. Seriously, with GPL implementation, commercial implementations with unlimited runtime distributions, etc., very fast compiled code.... it seems to me that unless you:

• are doing real-time apps where garbage collection is unacceptable (and you're unable to write Lisp code that avoids the GC)
  
• really need to pay attention to the final object code's size (critically need - as noted before, STL doesn't cause template bloat in non-debug compiles).
  
• hmmmmm I'm running out of reasons here
  
• Human factors - "nobody uses Lisp", "we'd never find programmers", "all those parenthesis"
  

Note: modern editors make the parenthesis comfortable. They are the key to making Lisp extensible because anything following an open parenthesis is a function to be called. Define a function, you just added new syntax to Lisp. You can redefine existing functions, including those in the base package such as addition:

(defun + (* a b))

and addition is broken everywhere. Lisp is a power tool and should be kept away from children. Use it if you really need to build something incredible.

What other reasons are there not to use Lisp? Lisp has had the features you named as important. Lisp has had them for years. And, speaking as one who has experience with STL, you simply don't need an STL in Lisp. Lisp is truly a giant STL. I don't have to define and name all the miscellaneous little structures I need, I just construct and use them on the fly. Not to mention closures, functions as first-class objects, lambda's (i.e. unnamed functions defined even in parameter lists), macros, run-time typing... the read-eval-print loop for debugging, the ability to replace a function in the middle of a running system with no giant compile/link... geeze Louise it's phenomenal. All those things combined seem to obviate the need for 98% of the things I use classes for in C++/STL. I'll know more after I build something really big in Lisp and have a lot of people using it. I'm working on that...

I enjoy C++ and STL a lot. I'm really looking forward to a lot more finger time with Common Lisp. Don't want to give either one up. But my sense at the moment is that Lisp is by far the more powerful environment. It certainly does everything you mention in your post.