[flavio81]

More disillusionment than condescending. I jumped on learning Clojure waiting for big, nice surprises, new stuff, or an enlightening moment, but there wasn't any.

I do, however, find it easy to learn and that's a good thing.

On the other hand i am not really knocking down Clojure. If somebody wants me to do a project that requires interacting with lots of Java classes, I'm really glad Clojure exists, since it liberates us from plain Java. I am also glad that it's a good "gateway drug" to Lisps in general. I'm also glad that ClojureScript exists, perhaps this is the best part of Clojure.

But Clojure is not really my cup of tea. I want wide options for mutable data (for performance reasons). I want multiple paradigms, including a powerful OOP system. I want easy recursion with tail call optimization. I want explicit, detailed error messages, etc.

[simongray]

I think your description is fair, although I feel like you could have started with the Clojure/ClojureScript combo for making SPAs in your first comment. That is really the biggest driver of Clojure right now, the fact that it has a mature compile-to-JS implementation that can share source code with the backend.

[flavio81]

I think ClojureScript is very nice and I often recommend it to any Javascripter.

I sincerely thank Hickey for liberating us from Java and plain Javascript. I think that if Clojure was pitched more as substitutes of Javaxx and less as "the improvement over Lisp", many of us Lispers would be happy. As I mentioned, it isn't an improved Lisp; it is a different language with a different (valid) philosophy which some will like.

[thom]

Clojure's just a bunch of specific pragmatic decisions bunged into a Lisp. If you've never had a problem selling, deploying and integrating Common Lisp apps for clients then it sounds like it would be of dubious utility to you. People will argue all your individual points because that's what people do, but honestly, you're fine, Clojure's fine, everyone's fine.