The author is one of the principal folks behind Haskell. But I can’t help but point out that I promise you you’ve never heard of the five or so lanaguages he mentioned as an alternative approach, and somehow this Lisp thing is still around. I suppose that which is dead may never die :-)

> But I can’t help but point out that I promise you you’ve never heard of the five or so lanaguages he mentioned as an alternative approach

I actually had heard of at least KRC and Miranda even before the first time I've read the paper, but even if I hadn't I would immediately be able to think of several languages with some or all of the additional features over the Lisps he was comparing them to for which he describes them as superior to Lisp for the purpose, including some modern Lisp derivatives.

Pattern matching, mathematical notation, and static typing with use defined types are all features that have become more, not less, common in languages since the paper was written.

To be fair, Haskell is the Common Lisp of lazy functional languages. You don't hear much about Maclisp or Zetalisp anymore either.