It&#x27;s not a binary, either&#x2F;or choice between &quot;Lisp is perfect&quot; and &quot;we need a new variant of Lisp&quot;. Here&#x27;s a map of possible attitudes toward Lisp. Take your pick.<p>On the Lisp-affinity axis,<p>1. Lisp is almost perfect as-is, we don&#x27;t need new variants which will only adulterate the purity and greatness of Lisp as it already exists.<p>2. Lisp is great, and my favorite variant (e.g. Scheme) is the greatest variant because it is the purest available representation of the Lisp concept.<p>3. Lisp is mostly great, it just needs features x, y, z... which are provided by my favorite variant (e.g. Clojure).<p>4. Lisp is great, but really only for particular things, and its variants might be great for slightly different things.<p>5. Lisp isn&#x27;t so great at all, and making new variants is just putting lipstick on a pig. Use a functional language other than Lisp (e.g. Haskell).<p>6. Functional programming as a whole sucks. Use a mixed-paradigm or imperative language (Java, C#, Perl, etc.)<p>7. High-level programming sucks. Use something without mandatory garbage collection (C++, Rust, C, Assembly).<p>On the intolerance-to-tolerance axis,<p>1. Lisp is almost perfect as-is, we don&#x27;t need new variants which will only adulterate the purity and greatness of Lisp as it already exists.<p>2. Lisp is great as-is, so we don&#x27;t really need new variants, but since they are also Lisp, they are also great.<p>3. Lisp is great, but some other languages are also great.<p>n. It doesn&#x27;t matter what language you use, all language differences are only cosmetic.