It is.

The title above is an exact quote from correspondence I received in the summer 
of 2007, and echoes what many, many others have written or said to me.

They're wrong.

Well, they're right, of course:  [Expect] gives ''them'' the appearance of dormancy.
I haven't researched what all goes into this, but I'm almost certainly there are
basic errors of fact afoot.

It's certainly true that Expect, and [Tcl] more generally, is managed conservatively.
It '''is''' maintained, though, and with considerable care and expertise.  In particular,
I know that it remains ahead of what the corresponding Expect [extension]s for [Perl] and
[Python] achieve.

I think it'd be great for people to mention here the evidence they have of Expect's
stagnation; perhaps we can collaborate to understand better its true state.

----

I was one the few correspondences of the above issue. A few reasons why I mention this.

1. At least as far as I know, there has only been one book of Expect released and that is by the original author titled "Exploring Expect."
   * I have read quite a few statements saying that there is no need for another book since this book just "nails it."
1. It is hard to find updated documentation, blogs, articles, or expect use cases.
   * The most recent one I've found was surprisingly written only a couple of months back and actually inspired me to really consider Expect. [http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/aix/library/au-expect/]
1. I couldn't find a list of simple examples for expect. I was looking for something like a cookbook with a bunch small expect scripts.
1. What about pexpect [http://pexpect.sourceforge.net/]? Are there any advantages to it rather than using regular expect?

Don't get me wrong. I played around with expect and I love its power but I just didn't want to jump into it if there are newer and more powerful alternatives.