Good point, thanks! I've removed the footnote, and I'm going to rewrite that paragraph to steer away from Common Lisp a bit. My point wasn't Clojure > Common L

Good point, thanks! I've removed the footnote, and I'm going to rewrite that paragraph to steer away from Common Lisp a bit. My point wasn't Clojure > Common Lisp. I was simply anticipating the "but npm has 200k modules" argument against Lisps in general and I wanted to illustrate why it doesn't matter if you're using Clojure. It does seem like a somewhat valid case against Common Lisp, but I don't care and it detracts from my main point.