Clojure's syntax for transients is deliberately more cumbersome. A Scheme like 'loop! would flag the decision to employ mutation. Instead, Clojure steps outside the conventions of dynamic typing and expressions and requires something that looks like a static type specification and another thing that looks a lot like a 'return statement.
To put it another way, the language complects mutation instead of simplifying it and it's reasons for doing are...well, what's the difference between an ideology and an enforced opinion?
Clojure is rarely introduced with, ok here's how you can do exactly what you were doing before in Clojure, and now here are some ways that you might think about doing it differently. Instead, Quincy autopsying the corpse before the opening credits are even finished.
None of which is to say that I don't like Clojure. It's just that the really important question is part of the theology rather than evangelical outreach. Java in Clojure probably isn't good Clojure, but it might often be better Java. 20% less imperative code is probably an improvement.
To put it another way, the language complects mutation instead of simplifying it and it's reasons for doing are...well, what's the difference between an ideology and an enforced opinion?
Clojure is rarely introduced with, ok here's how you can do exactly what you were doing before in Clojure, and now here are some ways that you might think about doing it differently. Instead, Quincy autopsying the corpse before the opening credits are even finished.
None of which is to say that I don't like Clojure. It's just that the really important question is part of the theology rather than evangelical outreach. Java in Clojure probably isn't good Clojure, but it might often be better Java. 20% less imperative code is probably an improvement.