[hombre_fatal]

You also need to learn a new tool to write lisp, like paredit.

While it's amazing once you've learned it, and you're slurp/barfing while making huge structural edits to your code, it's a tall order.

I used Clojure for a long time, but I can't go back to dynamic typing. I cringe at the amount of time I spent walking through code with paper and pencil to track things like what are the exact keyvals in the maps that can reach this function that are solved with, say, `User = Guest | LoggedIn` + `LogIn(Guest, Password) -> LoggedIn | LogInError`.

Though I'm glad it exists for the people who prefer it.

[midnight_eclair]

i'm surprised anybody coming from clojure would say this.

you absolutely do NOT need to learn paredit to write lisp, any modern vim/emacs/vscode plugin will just handle parentheses for you automatically.

that said, if you do learn paredit style workflow - nobody in any language in any ide will come even close to how quickly you can manipulate the codebase.

[hombre_fatal]

I realize how lame it is to relitigate Clojure's downsides every time it comes up. I fell into the same trap that annoys me about Elm threads: people who haven't used it in a decade chiming in to remind everyone they didn't like some aspect of it. Wow, such contribution.

It's like seeing that a movie is playing at the theater so you show up only to sit down next to people to explain your qualms with it, lolz. Sometimes you need to let others enjoy the show.

The OP of this thread even said all that needed to be said "The learning curve is steep but very much worth it" yet we're trapped in this cycle because someone had to embellish it with a listicle.

I take my post back.

[thunky]

I didn't realize it was a no-no to share opinions here.

Plus to be fair we're having this discussion in the context of an article from 2021 that just rose to front page of HN, only to repeat the same set of pros we've been hearing about Clojure for ages (code as data, repl, etc).

Probably should expect some dissenting opinions.