There's a
BIG difference in ecosystems if a system starts out with pervasive threading or doesn't. In a slightly different domain, I saw this back when I was doing NT programming in the '90s. From the start it provided threads and plenty of thread safe stuff (and plenty not, including the MCV++ Standard Template Library in 1997, although that was mostly of an initial botch of the port from the HP? code), and this made quite a difference compared to trying to write threaded programs for UNIX(TM).
If you're not going to limit yourself to copying paradigms like the Actor model I argue you're going to be in for a world of hurt, even as your ecosystem matures, because you'll almost certainly have non-thread safe stuff from the days when the community wasn't considering threading.
So all I'm saying in this argument is that Common Lisp is traversing this painful path, and will never be as optimal as it might be, because when it was cast into concrete in 1984 threads weren't part of it.
The Clojure argument for standard data structure syntax-literals, and strict limits on reader macros, is indeed legibility, defined as portability between humans. I think it's an issue, but one that I think we'll have to agree to disagree on. Although I don't see gaining CL compatibility as a goal, the foundations of the languages are too different (functional vs. multiparadigm including but not limited to functional).
I agree that age itself isn't a good criticism, I was pointing out how Common Lisp's extreme age has resulted in issues, and "age criticisms" could be interpreted that way.
This goes all the way back all the way to the very first late '50s LISP, e.g. while I personally like them, classic examples are Contents of the Address Register and Contents of the Decrement Register (car and cdr) of the vacuum tube IBM 704. More consequential are things like Lisp-2 vs. Lisp-1; maybe it's just a matter of taste and not having written enough macros in my career but I prefer the latter.
Hmmm, to sum up, one argument for Clojure is that we now known enough to create a more restrictive dialect and benefit from the good taste of Rick Hickey and now others who are helping to carry the language's torch. Callow youth though he might be, mrottenkolber is spot on when he says it's an opinionated language, and that'll certainly mean among other things that it'll not be to many experienced Lisper's taste (probably easier if you're a Schemer, though).
I harp on SMP programming because I find it, and the functional programming solutions to it, very interesting, not to mention it's just plain better for writing robust software. Closure seems to have done a good job using the latter to address the former, and gaining those other minor details guaranteed FP grants you.