[pinchhit]

This is not what I meant by maintainable. The companies I've programmed clojure in were sizable and bet on it for their entire stack, and hired very sharp senior people to work on them.

Even there, the projects suffered so much to hit release dates and stay understandable as the system grew that velocity suffered relative to peers doing experiments in traditional OO languages. In fact, the maintenance burden (for code composed by smart senior people!) is so high that it's actually convinced me on the virtue of regular OO/procedural languages over lisp.

[kazinator]

> it's actually convinced me on the virtue of regular OO/procedural languages over lisp.

This is an example of the problem of Clojure being promoted as Lisp. There are now people whose idea of what is "Lisp" is represented by Clojure.

You might like coding in a normal, procedural Lisp with OOP, but due to a bias induced by Clojure, you don't suspect that's even a thing.

[thisiszilff]

To what extent do you think it is a clojure problem vs a people problem? Further up in the comment thread there was a post discussing how some orgs had problems because people would be writing java in clojure (or python or ruby, etc.). I can see there being problems with people no writing idiomatic clojure code in part because clojure is nwe and their experience is in OO/procedural languagees.