Considering his strongest argument for Clojure seems to be "economy of expression" [1], I think it's time to stop following what he things. For someone that spent a lot of his career talking about rotting code, how to adapt to change, things like that; his only argument being "it's faster to write" feels really weak.
You seem to misunderstand the argument he makes in that post.
> It is just simpler, and easier, and less occluding to write expressive code in Clojure. It requires fewer lines. It require fewer characters. It require fewer hours. It requires fewer mental gymnastics.
This paragraph is not only about "faster to write". It's about faster to understand, easier to maintain (less code to understand), easier to change and a lot more. I urge you to re-read the post again and think about what's being written,
> I think it's time to stop following what he things.
I think this is true for many "leaders" in programming. We should never follow people because they are (self-described/community-described) as "thought leaders", it simply leads to too much cargo culting. You see this in Clojure, VueJS and so many other ecosystems.
Ideas are good if they are good ideas, not good because of who said them.
At not point he mention that the code is faster to read or understand though, just that it's easier to write "expressive code", whatever that means. He also lies a bit by saying "You’ve just seen 80% or so of the syntax of Clojure.": https://clojure.org/guides/weird_characters.
> Ideas are good if they are good ideas, not good because of who said them.
You're right about that, I always insist a bit more with Robert Martin because there is a lot of cargo culting around what he says. Clean code and TDD are other good examples of that.
