macros

If the boiler-plate is what bothers you then you could create the appropiated macros to tailor your taste.

You can write macros for which the source is ClojureScript, but they need to be kept separate.

Does this also mean that we will be able to write macros in Clojurescript?

Either vague scaremongering without any specifics, or attacks on something that is totally unrelated to the macros.

Without macros - only the limited set of things that the language designers decided to give you.

You end up with a rats nest of spaghetti code often, for example, unless you use structured programming macros.

With macros, every single semantic property you can imagine is available to you at no cost.

It's important to mention that macros do not affect the rest of the language design choices in any way whatsoever.

The underlying language can be literally anything, macros can be added on top of any imaginable combination of design decisions.

There's 150 people currently downloading data into Excel, running a few macros they know nothing about, and then reuploading the CSVs.

So unless D or Rust have macros, you end up with Julia and Clojure.

Many languages from 70s and 80s had macros, but today it's not so common.

In my own scheme-esque language, I have tried hooking up extra-concise means not only for lambdas, but for "anonymous macros" too.

What is needed is to promote such discipline instead of spreading lies that "macros are dangerous".

Heck, even the Lisp community is divided whether or not the macros should be "hygienic".

> What is needed is to promote such discipline instead of spreading lies that "macros are dangerous".

Macros combined with the proper discipline are by orders of magnitude less dangerous than pretty much any other programming practice in existence.

Macros are the ultimate way of doing so.