[pron]

> My impression is that refactoring with an IDE is mainly an artifact of Java, not Clojure.

I don't think this should be so. If an IDE could help refactor Clojure - why not?

> Whereas an IDE is often used to generate repetitive code in files -- i.e. Automated Repeat Yourself.

Yes, IDEs do that, too, but IDEs had existed long before this feature came about. There's probably no need for code generation in Clojure, but an IDE could still help with debugging, building, navigating the code, refactoring, and maybe even new things like Light Table tries to do.

I agree that IDE functionality matches the programming language. But IDE features are not a pre-specified set. I'm sure there are many ways IDEs could help Clojure (or any other language).

[lemming]

Absolutely - it's a common misconception that IDEs only generate code for blub programmers. Most IDE functionality, particularly things like refactorings, are not at all language specific and are just as useful in Clojure as in Java. They're a lot harder to implement and it's pretty much impossible to give a guarantee of correctness as you would get in Java or another statically typed language, but it's still very helpful.

The real problem in Clojure is the fact that the syntax is so flexible, which massively complicates symbol resolution and other things. You can't even reliably tell whether the form you're in has a do-body or not!

[pron]

It's pretty clear that a Clojure (or any other lisp) IDE would have to expand macros. This could potentially have side-effects, but there's really no (good) way around it. Besides, Clojure programmers are used to "passive" tools evaluating forms. Even documentation generators like marginalia and codox actually load a namespace rather than just examine the file, which could have side effects, too.