I think we have two schools of thought here. The first appreciates lisp as a formalism, and the second as an industrial strength language. I don't see why the

I think we have two schools of thought here. The first appreciates lisp as a formalism, and the second as an industrial strength language. I don't see why the other would invalidate the other. Tiny lisp interpreters cherish Lisp as a small formalism that for some people help understand computing on a deeper theoretical level. It can also be jury rigged on top of any substrate to implement various ad-hoc systems (Greenspuns tenth rule very much applies here). The fact that we use Lisp in Greenspun 10th form or as a syntax to think about programs does not mean it would be nice to have Lisp production systems. I don't see how small lisp interpreters would be offensive to anyone. They are pure joy in my opinion, expressing neatly how a topic that sound fairly complex (interpreters) is actually expressible in elegant and succint form. On public: "more ignorance in the general public" I don't know how much public sentiment matters in deep professional fields. I don't need to know how neurosurgeons think about their craft - why should a neurosurgeon know what Lisp is? SICP is such a legendary book that it should hold Lisp's flag high enough in my opinion.