Here I was making the point that it's hard to say what'd be a good enough Clojure mode for Emacs unless you actually a subject expert in Clojure. (or at least reasonable familiar with Clojure) This was a response to the statement that simply deriving from lisp-mode would be good enough. Sorry if I didn't make this clear.
The topic of whether Clojure support should be included OOTB is completely orthogonal to this IMO.
> Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 17:04:32 +0200
>
> Without an understanding of Clojure and its tooling ecosystem (and it's history) it's hard to
> make good suggestions about what makes sense and what doesn't.
I disagree with this assertion, and disagree in general, not just
specifically wrt clojure-mode. One of the important jobs of an Emacs
maintainer is to understand enough about any candidate feature to make
this kind of decisions, without being an expert in its subject matter.
Maybe I'm doing my job not well enough, but you seem to be saying that
this job is impossible to do, and that the only people who can make
good decisions about this are the experts on the subject matter. That
is certainly incorrect.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that Clojure is an important
programming language, and the way to the decision of having it
supported OOTB in Emacs is very short from there.