While the article is right in the basic summation JavaScript != Lisp I think it is not entirely accurate to say that JavaScript did not borrow heavy from lisp to create a simplified languadge that is more similar to Lisp than C. As well JavaScript's object system borrowed and expanded on Lisp's collections data structures. Whether one thinks it is a bad design or not JavaScript's prototype inheritance is based of a hash table like structure that resembles higher order collections. The designers intent with JavaScript was to make it as simple as BASIC to pick up, but allow it to be somewhat powerful. While they made some dreadful decisions along the way, they achieved their goals which is a pretty good achievement. But to me, I see the fingerprint of a stripped down Lisp more than I do say a stripped down C.<p>On a personal note, I think JavaScript and the browser's implementers decision to make it an event based system has made the whole development of UI's very elegant. I always likes UI systems that favored events and observers over procedural controllers as such I think JavaScript is a fantastic languadge for UI development.<p>I am still on the fence for back end business logic and infrastructure projects. When given the choice, I would rather just use Clojure or Java as opposed to JavaScript, there is no doubt about it that Lisp is a more powerful languadge and given the choice I would use it over JavaScript, but in the UI, JavaScript is powerful enough, yet easy enough for a designer to pick it up, as such I think it is designed well for it's intended purpose. Even if I don't agree with every design decision and even if it does not exactly resemble Lisp in it's efforts to mimic some of the power of Lisp.