> Learn Lisp. Realize that JavaScript is a lot like Lisp,

This would have been true a long time back when Lisp was the language with first class functions, closures etc., but today every other languages have those and JS is a lot closer to them Lisp.

Even if this was true, why not learn JS and skip the Lisp part?

> but with better libraries and C-like syntax.

May be with better 3rd party libraries. Out of the box, JS standard library sucks.

Sexps aside, no continuations, no TCO, and no macros mean that JS is actually pretty far from Lisp.

It's Scheme that has continuations and TCO (guaranteed by the spec) -- Common Lisp has neither, I believe.

I think you're right. What I was trying to point out is that learning "Lisp" (which one?) is not a good way to get better at Javascript. Lua or Io - maybe, but even then the suggestions of other people in the thread for actual JS resources are so much better.