I think what Rich got right is the practical approach. Clojure is about compromises (like all engineering). It's not a theoretical exercise, it doesn't prove a

I think what Rich got right is the practical approach. Clojure is about compromises (like all engineering). It's not a theoretical exercise, it doesn't prove a point, it's about getting things done. This also means that sometimes things do not seem as "beautiful" as one might like. Well, that's because they aren't. There is no way to sugarcoat certain things without making the language less practical, and Clojure seems to have been designed with no sugarcoating in mind. Incidentally, I love this quote from Rich, an answer to people complaining that Clojure isn't easy to learn: "Instruments are made for people who can play them". I've grown to appreciate that over the years. You don't expect to be able to sit at a piano of a particular brand and just start playing it.