However, it's false that Clojure doesn't have a company behind it: Cognitect is certainly backing up Clojure by developing ClojureScript and Clojure itself, Clojure consulting, the Datomic database and the Pedestal "framework".
Second, Typesafe is a tiny company, and the most prolific committer to the Scala compiler just quit - not just Typesafe, but Scala altogether. Doesn't seem rock solid to me.
Clojure has several companies behind it.
Paul Phillips did NOT quit Scala altogether: https://github.com/paulp?tab=activity
This is a surprising bit of FUD that has taken hold amongst gleeful Scala haters.
And yes, he's still involved, but far less so than before when he was working full-time on the compiler at TypeSafe.
On the plus side, Dotty, the new "simplified" Scala compiler, is in the works and collections library will likely be overhauled in the process.
as for Clojure, typed Clojure looks interesting, but otherwise the little rascal Haskell is my Scala escape hatch for the time being.
I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't have a rock solid base.
I would like to use scala more, but I found clojure easier to use and equally powerful in practice.
I don't like clojure either, but it has nothing to do with its Lispy-ness.
There are many reasons to not be fond of a language. Clojure is in the middle of two worlds: It's not as pure as a real lisp, and yet it still has all of lisp's syntactic sensibilities.
Some people dislike it for one reason, other dislike it for the other. Both reasons are quite valid, but I'd bet that reading like a lisp is the most popular reason.
My personal opinion is that if Lisp's approach to syntax was a winner, it'd have won a decade or two ago. But that doesn't mean other opinions are not valid.
And again, it's not that I don't appreciate Lisp: Many Lisp features have been added into members of the Algol family over the years, and it has made them better.