In Effective Programs - 10 Years of Clojure (Oct 12, 2017), Rich Hickey talks about how he never considered Lisp’s syntax to be a problem when designing Clojure. He suggests that attempts to work around the syntax are bad:
I think things like Par—make-it-go-away – whatever that is – is a terrible idea, and it’s not good for beginners to do that – to try to solve a problem that’s a feature.
I’m not clear if he’s referring to Paredit or Parinfer there, but guessing the latter?
As a relative newcomer to Clojure with only limited exposure to Lisp syntax (via Racket), I’ve been using Cursive with Parinfer mode active. To me it feels natural to have the syntax be inferred, since the “guesses” are often what I want anyway. Projects that make Clojure easier to read and write seem healthy to me.
Is using it really as bad an idea as the creator of Clojure suggests?