ASDF and Quicklisp are two different things. Quicklisp uses ASDF.
ASDF hasn't solved many problems. It was basically another system definition tool (with a different license). We had them before. What ASDF provided was that open source / free software used a common system definition.
Quicklisp OTOH provides a service. It uses ASDF. I provides library management and a collection of libraries.
The process over that to improve these libraries, make them better documented / more portable / rated / ... is something that happens over time.
Quicklisp does not solve all problems. It does not aim to. But it solves some.
I agree with you completely. QuickLisp does a damn fine job of solving some major problems. Honestly, looking through QuickLisp while writing up my post has made me consider moving from scheme back to CL for the first time in a long time.
My comment about asdf mostly comes from my experiences back in 2005 when I repeatedly heard that Common Lisp had NO problems and that asdf was so superior to CPAN or rubygems that there was no need to implement a new package system. In the same way, I often heard that we didn't have an issue with insufficient libraries, since UFFI (or was it CFFI?) has solved all of that. I wouldn't have been surprised if those same commentators would today declare that QuickLisp has solved everything.
However, those conversation that I had back in 2005 were not with you and I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
ASDF hasn't solved many problems. It was basically another system definition tool (with a different license). We had them before. What ASDF provided was that open source / free software used a common system definition.
Quicklisp OTOH provides a service. It uses ASDF. I provides library management and a collection of libraries.
The process over that to improve these libraries, make them better documented / more portable / rated / ... is something that happens over time.
Quicklisp does not solve all problems. It does not aim to. But it solves some.