[mapcars]

They should not be a part of language, what for?

Everything else you mentioned is about community only, and doesn't apply directly to the language.

E.g. if you have a good language without a community, community can eventually grow, but you can use the language anyway.

If you have a bad language with great community - it doesn't reduce your suffering from the language itself.

[coldtea]

>E.g. if you have a good language without a community, community can eventually grow, but you can use the language anyway. If you have a bad language with great community - it doesn't reduce your suffering from the language itself.

My experience has been the inverse.

I'd rather use a bad, or usually mediocre language WITH community, tooling, libs, books, programmers etc, than a better one where I'll be burdened by the lack of all of these.

So, in a sense, community tramps inherent language qualities.

After all that's the very basic message from Lisp and Smalltalk.

[catnaroek]

Agreed. Clojure isn't overall a bad language, but it has annoying quirks in a lot of places, presumably because it needs to be compatible with Java. The ones that annoy me the most are (0) `nil` and `false` being different, and (1) wonky arithmetic that uses Java's numeric types under the hood, unless you explicitly ask it not to.