There's a difference between "attempted" and "tried". And from the points you have nitpicked I can confidently say: no, you have not really tried using it in a real, production setting. That is just that obvious. No experienced Clojurista would ever blankly list some reasons without specific context. Every single point you're trying to make has a caveat, every single one of them is disputable. Your statements are not factually false, but it doesn't mean they carry any meaningful, practical insight to the functional relation between the parts that make overall experience and why they make it an excellent choice for many problem spaces.
> because of your hostility
Clojure, just like pretty much every single language, tool, technique or paradigm does have its pros and cons, there's no denying that, but you can't just blindly come and shit all over someone's backyard expecting people to happily explain to you how inaccurate path your thinking took there. And it's not just a reaction to the post about Clojure - I'd defend any other tool the same way if someone did what you have.
> Stopped reading
If you don't have mental capacity to visually scan through four paragraphs of a response to your own remarks, that's pretty indicative. I guess you're not here to learn something new, but rather to assert your own perceived rectitude. Well, your perception is misguided. I suggest you correct it by learning more about the topic you so confidently trying to argue about, or respectfully and humbly STFU. If you think you know better than Goetz, Odersky, Kay, Steele, Felleisen, Friedman - that perhaps is not a good reflection. Just something to think about.
