While it has improvements to be made in terms of liquidity availability, routing etc, I think the only people who don't think so are the ones who do not use it on a day-to-day basis.
I bought my phone thanks to lightning, and use lightning every day. I haven't had a failed route in about a year and have seen adoption for it grow.
Slowly, yes, but also surely. Best it be slow, lest it pressure development - This gives us time to build in a healthy manner, with proper discussion towards healthy consensus.
The way I see it, we build native solutions to native problems. We're not going to take another blockchain that made immediate trade-offs for immediate solutions.
At the end of the day though, Time Running == Level of Security & Decentralisation.
I want my transactions, be they money or others forms of data, to be recorded on the longest-running, most secure and decentralised network because it is the most resilient to attacks.
Any other coin may have smart-contracts, for instance for notarisation - I don't want any other blockchain to be my source of truth for the house I've bought, but I also realise perhaps my one notarisation doesn't necessarily need to be stamped by itself on the Bitcoin blockchain. Perhaps it's bulk process.
I want it to be the longest running one, because in this specific case 'first to market' meant the 'happy-accident' that was its proliferation, none can compete with that.
We don't need multiple blockchains to solve a problem. We need developers that understand Bitcoin's base-layer scalability problems are a mere by-product for it being the most secure global monetary system, and that are clever enough to work with that. Up until ~2015, most didn't think that was possible for the problem Lightning solves, and yet it did - Improvements to be made aside.