I understand that, but as I said I don't like that at all. It binds methods to low-level adhoc features and not to class based domain ontologies. There are other pattern directed invocation systems, which also support that, but I usually prefer the more systematic approach of CLOS. In the tradition of symbolic programming I want to have symbolic classes as my anchors for functionality, not adhoc patterns.
You can still create class-like ontologies with Clojure specs, but usually you don't need to.
Clojure's specs, adhoc or otherwise, certainly might not be your cup of tea. Clojure really pushes the idea of separation and isolation, and in my view you need to buy into that philosophy to be at all comfortable with the language.
Where I disagree with you is your assertion that maps in Clojure are always less structured than objects. I'd claim that (at least when properly spec'ed out) they provide far more structure than objects.
Yes, but as I said, using data structures over objects doesn't mean the data is unstructured. You can use lists, maps and vectors and still have a well defined and validated structure.
