I wonder why Clojurescript succeeded where Common Lisp hasn’t: compiling a lisp to javascript. Is Common Lisp particularly tricky in some way that Clojure isn’t?
a) Common lisp was already in undead state when Javascript became big. Semi-dead languages as a rule have worse tooling for "new" stuff.
b) Clojure didn't really fully succeed, there were annoying differences between Clojure and Clojurescript last time I looked. There are compilers for incomplete subsets of CL to JS as well, although presumably much worse ones.
c) There's some stuff in Common Lisp that's quite hard to do efficiently on top of most existing language runtimes. For example resumable exceptions and lua/CL-style optional multiple return values. In assembler or without concern for efficiency the last one is trivial, otherwise, not so much.
d) Clojurescript could bootstrap existing fancy JVM platform stuff (closure compiler) to do quite a lot of heavy lifting.
A) Writing a new Common Lisp implementation is a major undertaking, but a new implementation was creates specifically for C++ interop[1], and that implementation is certainly post javascript being big.
D) Anything targeting JS can run the output through closure; I've done so with Parenscript, for example.