Very good point. I have no rebutal, you're absolutely right on that front. I just don't know how to address this problem. It seems the people in a position to

Very good point. I have no rebutal, you're absolutely right on that front. I just don't know how to address this problem. It seems the people in a position to build good wrappers or Clojure implementations are also the people who know Java and Clojure, and maybe came to Clojure from Java. For them, it's easy to interop directly, so they take the path of least effort, and don't bother making a Clojure lib. In a way, if Clojure couldn't use Java, while it would mean I probably wouldn't be able to use it at my work and would be forced to still work in Java, it would also mean maybe for my personal stuff or for certain companies who'd embrace it anyways, I would and they'd be forced to go ahead and put the effort to build Clojure variants of all these libraries, and that would make it friendlier to people learning Clojure that don't know Java. I have to admit, I always react a bit defensive on articles like this one, and it's mainly because I don't see the problem, I see people complaining about things that are non-issue for me. But your point hits me in a different way, you make a good point, having to learn a language and a half (all of Clojure and half of Java) is definitely not as good as it should be. I think normally people come at it like saying how interop is bad, difficult, not idiomatic, or that there's no libraries so they had to use Go-lang, where there were clearly options to use a Java lib from Clojure. But if the article just said, hey, using Java is unapproachable to a lot of folks, learning to understand Java APIs and semantics is a lot of work, and it's turning people away from Clojure otherwise, now that's something worth discussing.