[reader_mode]

I've coded in Clojure enough to know that there are cases where it completely sucks (mostly when you have to do imperative low level code). I used to have a link to a standard library implementation of channels that was downright hideous to read as an example of this (and that code transformed to Java is actually easier to follow).

Clojure has some cases where it's insane how elegant you can make the solution, but frankly static languages with good type systems and tooling come close enough but don't have the scaling downsides.

[capableweb]

> I've coded in Clojure enough to know that there are cases where it completely sucks

Yeah, agree. But this is hardly surprising. Learn enough about ANY language on this planet and you'll come to the same conclusion.

The beauty of Clojure is that it mostly provides you with tooling and other facilities that leads to elegant and more importantly simple code.

[bjourne]

You can find hideous Haskell code too. Especially in code for which lazy evaluation doesn't work and you need to coax the runtime into computing stuff in the right order.

[acomar]

a rebuild of Haskell that got rid of the dynamic exception system and put laziness/strictness in the type system as an effect is my dream.