It's not a binary, either/or choice between "Lisp is perfect" and "we need a new variant of Lisp". Here's a map of possible attitudes toward Lisp. Take your pic

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