I don't think it's that rude: He's stating a preference.
There are many reasons to not be fond of a language. Clojure is in the middle of two worlds: It's not as pure as a real lisp, and yet it still has all of lisp's syntactic sensibilities.
Some people dislike it for one reason, other dislike it for the other. Both reasons are quite valid, but I'd bet that reading like a lisp is the most popular reason.
My personal opinion is that if Lisp's approach to syntax was a winner, it'd have won a decade or two ago. But that doesn't mean other opinions are not valid.
And again, it's not that I don't appreciate Lisp: Many Lisp features have been added into members of the Algol family over the years, and it has made them better.
A good counter argument to the Lisp syntax issue was made by our host in his "Beating the Averages" essay: http://paulgraham.com/avg.html (jump down to the The Blub Paradox section if you wish).
Comments
That is just a plain rude non-argument that smears Lisp because you didn't like clojure.
I don't like clojure either, but it has nothing to do with its Lispy-ness.
I don't think it's that rude: He's stating a preference.
There are many reasons to not be fond of a language. Clojure is in the middle of two worlds: It's not as pure as a real lisp, and yet it still has all of lisp's syntactic sensibilities.
Some people dislike it for one reason, other dislike it for the other. Both reasons are quite valid, but I'd bet that reading like a lisp is the most popular reason.
My personal opinion is that if Lisp's approach to syntax was a winner, it'd have won a decade or two ago. But that doesn't mean other opinions are not valid.
And again, it's not that I don't appreciate Lisp: Many Lisp features have been added into members of the Algol family over the years, and it has made them better.
A good counter argument to the Lisp syntax issue was made by our host in his "Beating the Averages" essay: http://paulgraham.com/avg.html (jump down to the The Blub Paradox section if you wish).