Most of the action around JavaScript isn't particularly innovative. Much of the library development we see is solely due to JavaScript lacking a useful default standard library, for example. Many of the recent and proposed language changes are just fixing basic functionality that was really broken to being with, if not completely missing.
It's very similar for Clojure. It's based on ideas that go back many decades now. Its main selling point is that it's somewhat more practical than previous Lisp or Lisp-like language implementations. Other than that, there's nothing particularly innovative about it.
Python never really suffered from those kinds of problems. It has had a very sensible set of language features since its inception. It has had a very practical standard library since its inception.
Due to a general lack of past mistakes or omissions, there just isn't the need for significant and ongoing repairs that can be misinterpreted as "innovation". This is part of why Python 3's adoption hasn't been that rapid. There really wasn't much to fix, and the problems that did exist were generally quite minor and easy to work around.
I think you're selling Clojure short. Its emphasis on purity, STM, and persistent data structures is quite different from most other Lisp-like languages, and indeed most other languages period. Those ideas have certain been tried elsewhere (Haskell, for example) but it's a path which is definitely not as well-trodden as you make it sound.
It's very similar for Clojure. It's based on ideas that go back many decades now. Its main selling point is that it's somewhat more practical than previous Lisp or Lisp-like language implementations. Other than that, there's nothing particularly innovative about it.
Python never really suffered from those kinds of problems. It has had a very sensible set of language features since its inception. It has had a very practical standard library since its inception.
Due to a general lack of past mistakes or omissions, there just isn't the need for significant and ongoing repairs that can be misinterpreted as "innovation". This is part of why Python 3's adoption hasn't been that rapid. There really wasn't much to fix, and the problems that did exist were generally quite minor and easy to work around.