Steve is wrong about macros - they don't compose as well as functions, and that's why people don't recommend them where a function works just as well.
As far as adding new things into the language, though, Clojure does tend to be conservative. There is a lot of thought (hammock time) that goes into each potential addition, and whether the increase in complexity is worth the increase in functionality.
This seems like a good thing to me, but maybe that just means I'm a software conservative (I doubt it, since I also love Ruby).
You don't use macros to inline functions or anything. You use macros to do things functions can't do. In a program written by the Lisp mindset, the amount of code covering macros can easily grow to greater than marginal. It's just that you're not writing functions, you're writing translation rules for your own language where you can solve the problem more easily.
So under its expressive covers, everything about Clojure is strongly
conservative, with a core overriding bias towards protecting
programmers from mistakes.
he's probably talking about macros and the focus on immutability/FP. With respect to macros, I really don't get why he interpreted Christophe Grand's presentation like that unless he walked away after the first two slides or so (and even then it's a stretch). Rich Hickey debunked his statement on macros very well here on HN (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4366661) - the view Christophe expresses is precisely the opposite of conservative: it's about increasing composability and flexibility, very liberal attributes by Yegge's own definition. Although "protecting programmers from mistakes" is definitely one side of FP/immutability, I seem to recall Rich and others arguing for it more in terms of reducing the cognitive overhead of programming by reducing incidental complexity - not having to hold as many things in your head while thinking about your system allows your brain to handle bigger systems and move faster. Removing mental obstacles for the programmer who is impatient to create furiously seems pretty damn liberal to me.
I had fun reading Yegge's post, as with most of his posts. But the part about Clojure really missed the mark. Which is a shame, given Yegge's arguing for lisp in the past and Clojure being a really cool, viable lisp for getting stuff done in the 21st century.
As far as adding new things into the language, though, Clojure does tend to be conservative. There is a lot of thought (hammock time) that goes into each potential addition, and whether the increase in complexity is worth the increase in functionality.
This seems like a good thing to me, but maybe that just means I'm a software conservative (I doubt it, since I also love Ruby).