Clojure makes me RAGE

Rich Hickey^† is a disgusting turd. His very existence is an insult to the legacy of Lisp, the genius of McCarthy, and all the hard work that Lispers have put in over the years. The fact that Clojure runs on the JVM^¥ is trivial compared to its other mortal sins, which are so numerous (and make me so angry) that I can't even describe half of them.

Shall I start with the munging-together of value and function names? In a proper Lisp you can instantly recognize head forms by the fact that they're at the head of the list. It was bad enough when Scheme made this ignorant mistake, and worse when Paul "Look at me, I don't even know what interactive development is" Graham copied it. Can't anyone learn from their errors? Oh, and by the way, Scheme tried to remedy this by having "hygienic" macros, which are also completely retarded but at least manage to make it usable. Clojure doesn't even have that. It's completely laughable.

It's not even as if that's the worst part. Not that I need to say it: There's too much syntax! I think Haskell must be Hickey's role model here, since I've never seen another language with as much syntax as Haskell ever in my life. And in Clojure, we get what is easily the most syntax-heavy Lisp-like (it's certainly nothing like Lisp except in the most superficial respects) that has ever been seen. All manner of things that could very easily be done in an ordinary head form style instead wind up littering brackets and delimiters all over the place, even in the simplest of functions. [foo] instead of (list foo), {:foo bar} instead of (dict :foo bar)...

Lambda. It's spelled "lambda," not "fn." Is that too much typing for you, Mr. Hickey? Is it? Did you sprain your wrists masturbating to your unwarranted self-importance? I hope they break off, Mr. Hickey, I hope they break off and you die. Because you've ruined Lisp for a lot of people. You can't even type "lambda?" Seriously? I'm not impressed.

I'm going to have some tea now. I'll be back. Later.

†_{What the fuck kind of a name is that, anyway?}
¥_{ABCL runs fine on the JVM, I hear. There's no point in making another dialect for that.}

>>37
You wish. These days the free Lisps are getting so many commits, ANSI compliance is excellent, code generation is pretty good, libraries are growing each day, and new users are appearing daily. For me, the CL implementations out there already provide most of the things I need, and I have no reason to use Clojure, but I don't have anything against it, since I haven't used it myself, but did see comparisons with it with other Lisps, and it didn't impress me that much, maybe if I actually needed access to a large java codebase, it would be more useful for me, but I have 0 java libraries I need, and even if I needed any, there is always ABCL.

The other point I want to make is that since LISP's inception, there was a lot of variation between how Lisp is to be implemented and what features it would have, and there was always healthy flame wars debate on the subject. It's very easy to change Lisp to do what you want, and you can redefine the language to match your tastes better, which is why everyone using Lisp seriously is a linguist. This is an advantage, not a problem, unlike other languages with static syntax, you can make Lisp be anything you want, and of course people will bitch and moan when that doesn't match their view, but that is fine!

Now back to whatever boring language you came from >>37!