The part about LT overpromising and underdelivering is true.
The rest is not true, and said with a partisan rudeness to top, mostly like someone wanting to piss over LT and Chris than a genuine criticism.
It starts: "It's good that LT is finally acknowledged to have failed as "the uber clojure IDE".
It never said it was the "the uber clojure IDE", not even used any words to this effect. It was an experiment in IDEs in general, and in fact the very landing page of the project writes:
"When we released our first blog post about Light Table back in April of 2012, it was just a new concept for an IDE. Thanks to the community, our concept was pushed to become a reality."
Moreover the parent continues:
>It's architecture is horrible, and its catering too much to other languages.
"Catering too much to other languages"? What does that even mean? Did anybody signed to the parent that it would only be for his favorite language (the "uber clojure IDE" he dreamt?)?
It was due to huge community demand that LT promised to support Javascript and Python too.
>Once it's dead the space it frees up can be filled again by something that actually works.
Nobody stopped the parent or anyone else from using something existing "that actually works" or creating something even better.
In fact the project is already usable for a lot of us for daily exploratory coding, not to mention having put some nice ideas to the forefront of future IDE work, including having concretely inspired the Swift playground features (as the Swift designer admitted).
It's just the usual old HN piss contest.
As if it was all a scheme to make $300K off of kickstarter. I don't know where the parent lives, but for someone like Chris and with Chris' past, that's money you can make in half a year in the US software business -- not having to slave to create a whole new IDE, or hire other people to give them a chunk of the money off...