I can only speak from the perspective of using Clojure, I toyed around with Racket and have no experience with CL.
That said, I disagree with some of the points you make:
> availability of useful libraries
Clojure is embedded in both JS runtimes and the JVM. Both feature massive ecosystems.
In terms of getting things done:
Languages like Python, JS and so on are fantastic at plumbing. But when it comes to modelling data-structures, manipulation and algorithms then they are far less expressive and productive than Clojure from my experience.
I personally think the main issue really is the learning curve. There are quite a number of things that 'suck' about Clojure initially:
1. In a Lisp you are essentially manipulating an AST rather than writing statement-based text. Initially this is cumbersome and taxing both while reading and writing programs.
2. In a functional Lisp like Clojure (and other FP languages) there is a wide variety of commonly used functions which are used to manipulate and compose data-structures and other functions. Especially when reading code this can be daunting.
3. Setting up a environment correctly for REPL driven development as a beginner and tuning it as an intermediate user is quite an undertaking in comparison to many other languages.
4. Clojure specifically being a hosted language forces you to understand the hosted ecosystem as well plus the wiring between the host and Clojure.
The payoff for all those four points is worth it:
1. Search for paredit visualizations like this one: http://danmidwood.com/content/2014/11/21/animated-paredit.ht.... Manipulating code this way requires mechanical prowess and exercise but scales up really nicely, especially alongside better understanding of Lisp code in general.
2. The incredible variety of functional building blocks scales really well with your experience and understanding. You are programming with a series of descriptive expressions, rather than lower level statements. Code becomes more declarative, dense and expressive. Abstraction is much more fluent.
3. A nicely set-up environment enables very fast development cycles and allows for understanding pieces of code of any scope in isolation, because you can evaluate, change and test any expression instantly.
4. This is in my experience a necessary evil to get higher adoption and a the massive library ecosystems of JS and Java.
I assume there are a lot of capable developers who simply cannot get over 1 possibly while being pushed back by 2-4. And I have to admit: If I wasn't already infected with Lisp at a younger age, I probably wouldn't have bothered with Clojure or any Lisp. But now it is my favorite for manipulating and modelling data AKA doing 'business-logic' and transformations between APIs.
Yes, Clojure is a special case. But still let's address your points.
Languages like Python, JS and so on are fantastic at plumbing. But when it comes to modelling data-structures, manipulation and algorithms then they are far less expressive and productive than Clojure from my experience.
My experience differs. It is hard to find a data structure that cannot be modeled with Python's native data structures with only a constant performance penalty. In fact I believe that I have only seen one, and I don't remember what it is.
I agree with the points that suck about Clojure. To them I must add, "It is hard to hire people who already know the ecosystem." For real businesses this is a non-trivial issue.
As for the purported payoff, I'm glad that you enjoy your editor. For all practical purposes the mechanics of editing code are not a pain point. Besides, I can do the same with vi in any language with braces. (Selecting a block in Python is slightly harder but again has not proven to be a significant challenge.) Designing code as a series of descriptive expressions has more to do with learning to program well than any particular programming language. The third point is not a significant pain point. And as for the fourth point, simply using the hosting language gives you the same library ecosystems without having to understand the wiring and translate all of the examples you find online.
The result is that if you want JS (I only occasionally do), you can just write in JS (or TypeScript). If you want Java (I don't), you can just write in Java.
However Clojure gives you the perfect tool that is customized to exactly how you have to work. Bully for you. My experience with evaluating such environments and tools is that for me to master it is a large investment of time and energy, at the end of which I might or might not (probably not) have much payoff.
(This doesn't stop me from learning said tools. There are good ideas there that I can adopt. But I have not found them particularly useful for me in practice.)
> My experience differs. It is hard to find a data structure that cannot be modeled with Python's native data structures with only a constant performance penalty. In fact I believe that I have only seen one, and I don't remember what it is.
My claim isn't that they don't exist or that one cannot implement them in for example Python (which is very false). I was imprecise there. What I was trying to say is that there is a higher degree of uniformity and generality to do the same in Clojure, which leads to more cleanliness and easier, more fluent abstractions. Clojure code (and I assume similar to true with other Lisps) feels more compatible with itself so to speak. Syntax plays a role here but also the fact that Clojure is designed to be primarily an FP language.
> I agree with the points that suck about Clojure. To them I must add, "It is hard to hire people who already know the ecosystem." For real businesses this is a non-trivial issue. (...)
I fully agree with this and with the rest of your points. I think there might also be factor of personal taste or way of thinking.
I understand what you are saying. I am unable to back it up or refute it from my personal experience. I do not know Clojure well enough.
I do know from personal experience that programming in a familiar environment is significantly more productive than programming in an unfamiliar one. And that many, many programmers have mistaken their personal productivity for the productiveness of the environment.
This is one of the causes of a lot of "holy wars". Because everything from indentation style, to operating system, to text editor, to language feels critical. And indeed is...for the programmer who hasn't learned how to switch between these things.
If someone had an oracle that could give us the answer, I would happily take an even money bet that something of this at least contributes to how much you prefer Clojure.
I also agree with you that there is a lot of personal taste and way of thinking involved. And furthermore that our opinions usually match whatever environment(s) we imprinted on. (In the interests of full disclosure, my background is math, Perl and relational databases.)
That said, I disagree with some of the points you make:
> availability of useful libraries
Clojure is embedded in both JS runtimes and the JVM. Both feature massive ecosystems.
In terms of getting things done:
Languages like Python, JS and so on are fantastic at plumbing. But when it comes to modelling data-structures, manipulation and algorithms then they are far less expressive and productive than Clojure from my experience.
I personally think the main issue really is the learning curve. There are quite a number of things that 'suck' about Clojure initially:
1. In a Lisp you are essentially manipulating an AST rather than writing statement-based text. Initially this is cumbersome and taxing both while reading and writing programs.
2. In a functional Lisp like Clojure (and other FP languages) there is a wide variety of commonly used functions which are used to manipulate and compose data-structures and other functions. Especially when reading code this can be daunting.
3. Setting up a environment correctly for REPL driven development as a beginner and tuning it as an intermediate user is quite an undertaking in comparison to many other languages.
4. Clojure specifically being a hosted language forces you to understand the hosted ecosystem as well plus the wiring between the host and Clojure.
The payoff for all those four points is worth it:
1. Search for paredit visualizations like this one: http://danmidwood.com/content/2014/11/21/animated-paredit.ht.... Manipulating code this way requires mechanical prowess and exercise but scales up really nicely, especially alongside better understanding of Lisp code in general.
2. The incredible variety of functional building blocks scales really well with your experience and understanding. You are programming with a series of descriptive expressions, rather than lower level statements. Code becomes more declarative, dense and expressive. Abstraction is much more fluent.
3. A nicely set-up environment enables very fast development cycles and allows for understanding pieces of code of any scope in isolation, because you can evaluate, change and test any expression instantly.
4. This is in my experience a necessary evil to get higher adoption and a the massive library ecosystems of JS and Java.
I assume there are a lot of capable developers who simply cannot get over 1 possibly while being pushed back by 2-4. And I have to admit: If I wasn't already infected with Lisp at a younger age, I probably wouldn't have bothered with Clojure or any Lisp. But now it is my favorite for manipulating and modelling data AKA doing 'business-logic' and transformations between APIs.