[reitzensteinm]

This is a strange comparison. ClojureScript looks bad here because it's using the native platform interop rather than a wrapped library, but the ability to easily drop down and interact with the host is one of the best parts of Clojure.

[another-one-off]

What looks bad about the ClojureScript example? I'm obviously a bit slow, but I can't see any practical difference between the two.

I do prefer the ClojureScript because I don't know how to type "λ" and that seems like a usability handicap. Minor complaint I know.

[dzpower]

The ClojureScript example is great.

Clojure and by extension ClojureScript has a lot of tasteful and pragmatic design decisions, e.g. the use of the threading form and implicit lambda illustrated with the "+ 2").

By contrast Racket has been extended to include a Clojure-inspired threading as a library, showing off just a little of its awesome linguistic extensibility, leading in this case to ergonomically similar code.

Clojure/Script is a wonderful opinionated modern Lisp; Racket is a more linguistically extensible modern Lisp. There's considerable cross-fertilisation going on.

If you love Clojure, it's worth keeping an eye on Racket.

* * *

You can spell λ out as lambda in Racket (and Scheme).

[vvillena]

You can write "lambda" instead of λ. DrRacket also has a shortcut to insert λ easily.

[Uhuhreally]

they incorrectly said they were comparing Clojure with Racket when in fact the example they gave was verbose Clojurescript