| Well, there's the fact that lists aren't conses, and conses as Lispers would expect them to exist don't. I think conses are pretty useful. But Clojure has the cons operator anyways. This also means that clojure's `read` violates one of read's important guarantees: the structure you read in will be identical to the structure you wrote out. Then there's the macro system. Given, it's better than CL's in some respects (it does what you want by default), but there are problems. Like not being able to use macros inside the packages that they're defined it. It's just generally less clean than Scheme's solution, and less versatile than CL's. And then there's all the things its inherited for Java: and object system that isn't properly OO, a lack of TCO (which would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that the language so very clearly wants to have TCO) At the end of the day, Clojure's fine. It's not terrible or anything. I just disagree with some of its design decisions, just like with Racket. But I do object to it being called The One True Lisp for practical use, because that's nonsense. Scheme and CL are both quite practical, and while most Schemes/CLs don't have the Java interop that makes Clojure so full of nice libraries, most of them do have a C FFI. And the C FFIs they have (at least in the Schemes I've seen) are some of the nicest around. |
I don't really care about having conses the way CL has them, and seqs feel like a very nice abstraction over the concept, though I also tend to use the idiomatic map-heavy style anyway.
Clojurescript has the staged macro issue, but JVM Clojure doesn't.
I wouldn't even say that Clojure has an object system, and wouldn't want one. Lacking TCO is a shame.