Integer division: I think the best thing to do is to produce an exact rational, like Clojure that was mentioned, and most Lisps, where it got that from.
Lisps do NOT do textual inclusion. Lisp systems are created from code, not text.
I guess that the author only saw the use of `use-package' or the `:use' option of `defpackage', but this is not necessary (and not generally used) to refer to other namespaces.
The actual use of `defpackage' is often quite close to how Clojure does it.
From my german perspective, every assumption in this article looks quite gross and barbaric.
Here, everyone is insured. If you break your arm, you get it fixed. If you get cancer, you get therapy. If you get the flu, you get a prescription. The overall cost is paid by the entire population, through the insurance system.
For what is the alternative? Maybe the overall monetary cost would be lower if everyone had to watch the price, but you would pay for it in human lives and suffering, when people have to decide between dying of illness or dying of hunger, or between lifelong pain or clothes for their children.
Lisp's problem is rather that so many people play around with it, but not long enough to develop /good taste/ in it, and finally loudly complain about the language when their real problem is their lack of imagination.
You discovered structs, but you should not have stopped there. Structs can be configured. You can declare boa constructors (yes, really, By Order of Arguments). You can configure the names of the accessors. You might even create a little reader macro for creating them. You might want to write a little with-3dvecs macro for quick destructuring. When structs do not have everything you need, maybe go to CLOS classes.
In Python, “there is only one way to do it”. In Perl, “there is more than one way to do it”. In Lisp, there are thousands of ways to do it. If you haven't found a good one for your problem yet, keep looking. I promise, there is at least one.
By the way, you also have no idea of Clojure, but I have only been using it for a few years, so I feel not confident to give meaningful hints.
Valid points, but not _the_ point. There is a big difference between allowing and supporting something.
OO languages _support_ hidden inputs and outputs as well as programming by mutation. They _allow_ programming in a functional style, but you will have to be inventive for it.
FP languages _support_ immutable values, referential transparency and all that. They _allow_ programming by mutation and hidden inputs and outputs, but you will have to be (sometimes very) inventive for it.