I'd be curious to see a survey of what background the average Clojure enthusiast has. If many of them come from Enterprise Java, it makes total sense to me why the enthusiasm for Clojure is so high (in fact, that's Rich Hickey's background). Java is: boilerplate-y, slow to iterate with, hard to express higher-level concepts in, requires lots of ceremony (in everything from type definitions to the build system). Clojure is a direct response to the cries of Java devs: the polar opposite of all the things they're sick of, without giving up the ecosystem that they're comfortable with.
Whereas for me: TypeScript is concise enough, functional enough, and has the added benefit of static types and multi-paradigm features for when you need them. The primitives aren't as good as Clojure's, and immutability requires a library, but I'm not so traumatized by Enterprise Java that I feel the need to seek out the exact opposite of it.
Not to invalidate that perspective; I'm just wondering if the Java background explains the discrepancy between different people's feelings about Clojure.
Anecdotal, but I don't think I ever programmed in Java before Clojure. I came to Clojure via Ruby, and was deciding between Clojure and SBCL, and Clojure won out. Being hosted on the JVM was part of that: extensive availability of the JVM and interop with existing Java libraries made it easier to get started.
Whereas for me: TypeScript is concise enough, functional enough, and has the added benefit of static types and multi-paradigm features for when you need them. The primitives aren't as good as Clojure's, and immutability requires a library, but I'm not so traumatized by Enterprise Java that I feel the need to seek out the exact opposite of it.
Not to invalidate that perspective; I'm just wondering if the Java background explains the discrepancy between different people's feelings about Clojure.