Sure. There is nothing wrong with writing an article " to compress the case for clojure for different people". We need those too.

When I read the title here on HN, I anticipated a balanced and comprehensive discussion on the design tradeoffs and was (mildly) disappointed to see that the article seemed to have a different focus (making a case for why Clojure is a language worth investing in, as far as I can make out).

I think Clojure is a brilliant language, but don't have enough experience with it to write about tradeoffs, and would really like to see a good discussion.

As I said in my original comment, it is a decent blog entry. My criticism is only about the (imo) mismatch between title and content.