None of these seem legitimate to me. Language is not big compared to python or something. Technically it is a lisp-n not a lisp 2, doesn’t matter in a practic

None of these seem legitimate to me. Language is not big compared to python or something. Technically it is a lisp-n not a lisp 2, doesn’t matter in a practical sense. Optimization of tail recursion isn’t in the spec but is done in some compilers. Loops are encouraged, as is mutation, objects. It’s truly multi-paradigm. It is very powerful, so in some ways it ruins you when you have to go back to writing python code, adhering to ‘PEP 8’ Standards, and people looking over your shoulder at code reviews. Common Lisp has the potential to be freewheeling and exploratory in a way that other languages still do not. I think of something, therefore I write it and it exists. There isn’t a lot of hemming and hawing about ceremony and rigor. I like that feature of Common Lisp... it is my own patch of the Wild West, to some extent. A lot of people think that if something isn’t difficult and tedious, it isn’t really software engineering. They may be right, but I prefer whatever this non-engineering discipline is to what I’m doing now.