I actually have very similar thoughts on clojure versus racket. I admire both languges for different reasons, but if I were to pick one to get the job done it would be Clojure. I cry every time I see the idiomatic construct in any Scheme of converting a vector or string into a list just so you can do the normal core operations on it, and then converting it back to a vector or string, but this kind of code is quite common due to the design of almost every Lisp.

Another issue I have with racket, which the article touched on a little, is the overall lack of cohesion between different libraries and language features. I believe this is an unfortunate consequence of starting out with such a simple core language as all Scheme's do. Everything that is built has a different style to it and doesn't necessarily interoperate well with other parts of the language.

For example, structures are entirely orthogonal to objects and the class and interface system are entirely orthogonal to units, even though these two pairs of features can heavily overlap in their use cases.

When it comes down to it, if I want to get something done in Clojure I feel like I have a clear path as to how to go about it, but in Racket it seems much easier to get lost inside the language for the reasons mentioned in the article.