1. The more I dig into Lisps, the more I find Lisp is not a language. 'Lisp' is more like the term 'C-like'. Common Lisp, Scheme, and Emacs Lisp are way too di

1. The more I dig into Lisps, the more I find Lisp is not a language. 'Lisp' is more like the term 'C-like'. Common Lisp, Scheme, and Emacs Lisp are way too different from each other. It's more like a comparison with C++, JavaScript, and Bash. Common Lisp is hardly a functional programming language. Emacs has no lexical scope (This really made me freak out). Clojure is a more qualified functional programming language. 2. Lisps, for example, Scheme was superior to other languages decades ago. But now, as you can see JavaScript is basically a Lisp without macro (Yeah I know HN guys don't like JavaScript, but I choose JavaScript because it's a footgun language like Common Lisp and Emacs Lisp). Or just Elixir, basically a Lisp without paren syntax. 3. Lisp never dies, there will be more. It will march forward as the industry moves. The Lisp syntax means the ease of parsing and macro design, and people will combine this feature with other features. There are already: a) Functional Lisps like Clojure b) Carp, a Lisp without GC, there were also Linear Lisp c) WASM, an assembly with S-expression d) I have already seen other prototypes with static types/dependent types/monadic macro systems etc.