Ah I see, ya that's a pretty neat feature for an OO language. You wouldn't get that in Clojure for defining types, since they'd be Java types and then they onl

Ah I see, ya that's a pretty neat feature for an OO language. You wouldn't get that in Clojure for defining types, since they'd be Java types and then they only get what features the Java runtime allows on types and it doesn't have that one. But in practice, since Clojure is functional, it's kind of a non-issue. I should really try CL to be sure, but it seems you'd get 95% or more of the same interactivity in Clojure. What I can tell you is I find Clojure superior to Emacs LISP in interactivity (which I've used both extensively). Emacs can technically redefine more things inside-out, like it can do the full runtime rebuild from the example link, but because it isn't functional and immutable first, managing the state as you redefine things tends to be more complex, and I find that makes it less interactive, since I need to do a lot of state setup and teardown to get things back to what I want to re-evaluate.