Because if lisp has it then we are not moving forward so much as people are creating new languages with the same features.

Don't know if that actually applies to Zig/D, but that's how I read it.

The revolutionary thing about lisp macros was that you could freely manipulate code as data.

What zig offers is completely different: it allows you freely manipulate types as data, while disallowing the ability to manipulate syntax.

It’s a major step forward if it fixes one of the huge problems with Lisps: adoption.

If the problem is that languages don't have enough adoption, then spreading people out over even more languages is the opposite of useful.

Depends on what you think the cause of the lack of adoption is. If you think it can be fixed by doubling down on existing languages, then sure. But I don't know if that's addressing the cause (because I don't know the cause).

I use Lisps all the time and love them. But I recognize that most people don't like them. At some point we have to meet people where they are, if we want to have broad impact. Ideas on their own aren't good enough, they need to be packaged up in the right way, approachable to the right people, marketed appropriately, etc. The tech itself is just a small part of what it takes for an idea to create impact.

I disagree, programming language ergonomics/"feel" is real and Lisp's don't fit everyone.