[jhbadger]

The following function is valid in hy and clojure.

(defn fact [x] (if (< x 2) 1 (* x (fact (- x 1)))))

Yes, hy and clojure don't have access to the same libraries, but then neither do clojure and clojurescript, yet you'd agree that clojurescript is a dialect of clojure, yes?

[polityagent]

It is a lisp, with visual similarities to clojure. Library access is irrelevant. The features that differentiate clojure are not there.

- Immutable and persistent data structures as the default

- Functional programming (no early returns or mutable bindings) as the default

- Reader literals for those data structures

- Concurrency primitives (including core.async)

- Protocols for polymorphism

From the hy docs: "Hy derives a lot from Clojure & Common Lisp, while always maintaining Python interoperability". Borrowing nice features where you find them is great, but it doesn't make it either a common lisp dialect or a clojure dialect. It just makes it a lisp with some similar stuff.

[DannyB2]

Clojure and Clojurescript DO have access to a lot of the same libraries.

There are also conditional reader constructs so that a library can, when necessary, offer different implementation details between Clojure and Clojurescript.

Ignoring libraries completely, Hy doesn't have the most important things that set Clojure apart. (As another poster points out.) Especially immutability.

This is nothing against Hy. I'm sure I would like it when I want a Lisp in a Python environment. But there's no good reason, and it is even misleading, to try to conflate it with clojure. It seems like it stands on its own strengths well enough.