It's interesting that in the current state of software development, a programming language that have been stable for not even a year might be considered obsolete.
A perennial problem in Clojure is libraries that reach a mostly "done" state tend to look inactive to outsiders, because the language is so stable there's almost no maintenance work.
So inevitably, someone will ask "Is lib foo still being used? The last commit was over 8 months ago" and then people have to chime in, "yes, it's still in heavy use".
Several languages have this problem, e.g. Common Lisp. It would be nice if developers of libraries like this at least updated their copyright annually, as an indicator that they and the project are still alive.
Who is the indicator for though? Wouldn't users of that language quickly come to expect that inactive is not necessarily dead or useless? (Especially with Common Lisp, stuff decades old is still useful.) And I find outsiders unlikely to care that much, it's just a nit random passerbys will make when they think they need to comment on something, rather than actually informing a serious decision.
It's also kind of pointless to "update the copyright year" for individual works tied to your name, since the copyright lasts x years after your death. If anonymous/pseudonymous, then it's like 95 years after initial publication date, and you can't just extend that arbitrarily by updating the base year and nothing else every year..
I think there needs to be something like the Apache foundation for Clojure libraries, not handling major dev work, but maintaining working libraries over time.
