Idk why, but this really rubs me the wrong way. It feels like marketing-speak. Clojure _is_ it's own thing, and so are the other languages (Janet, Fennel etc) that you seem to be detracting as some sort of Clojure spin-offs. Aside from all being lisp-like languages they have little in common that is exclusive of modern programming languages in general.
I've been told this a couple times. I doubt I'd thrive in that world though, unless I was selling something I actually gave a damn about.
IDK, is guile a scheme? guile is it's own thing, but it's definitely a scheme. What about racket? Racket has a whole bunch of stuff that mit-scheme doesn't. But it's still kind of in the scheme family. That's the parallel I was drawing. That and the statement that Hickey made in his History of Clojure that Clojurescript _was_ clojure, not some kind of spinoff.
I'm certainly not detracting from Janet and Fennel, but they _are_ quite close to clojure proper. There is a clear lineage.
