Nice article! The author captured many of my own feelings of Clojure compared to Common Lisp. I have been happily using Lisp languages since the 1970s and CL s

Nice article! The author captured many of my own feelings of Clojure compared to Common Lisp. I have been happily using Lisp languages since the 1970s and CL since 1982. I retired several months ago but I still spend time coding for my own research projects and for my book examples. I have been torn between going all in using just one of Racket or Common Lisp. Racket is a fun environment and I like the community but I have so much history with CL. I don’t know if I will choose just one, but it would be a good idea! The article didn’t mention the Hy language that compiles to Python AST. For a while I was very enthusiastic about Hy and I wrote a book about it. It used to have a “let” macro that mapped Lisp variable scoping to the jankyness of Python but that support has gone away and I feel like using “setv” and just accepting Python like scoping is a bridge too far for me. The philosophy behind Hy is great, but it is not my philosophy. I love the Clojure language (and I donated money to the project at the beginning) but I only use Clojure when I am being paid to use it for specific projects. The Bork Dude’s Babashka language is a fast loading Clojure, and I had a lot of fun for a while setting up a nice dev environment and using it for all recreational programming for a week. Babashka is worth a serious look.