If there's an unloved middle child of the telescope world, it's the little Mak. A reflector trying to compete in a refractor's world, any time its name is mentioned, someone will remind it that it will never outperform a refractor of the same aperture.
It's true, but that doesn't stop the little Mak from pushing on. Because what the refractorites don't realize is the Mak is playing a different game. Aperture diameter describes only 2 dimensions, completely forgetting the third. Refractors may be the champion in the league of performance per aperture diameter, but when performance per length is the metric then catadioptrics have the advantage.
So why care about length when aperture tells more about optical performance? Because a practical amateur lives in a three-dimensional world which has physical limits. The little Mak has much to offer such a person. There are obvious benefits like the fact that a 4" Mak can be shorter than the meatball sub you had for lunch, or the not-obvious benefit of eyepiece travel.
Even if you don't care about any practical considerations at all, and only care about performance, there is still an argument for the little Mak. Every telescope is only as good as the seeing allows it to be. On a night of average or worse seeing, bringing out a little Mak is just as good as bringing out a much larger, heavier and more expensive refractor. The little Mak will perform up to the seeing on most nights.
So who all agrees with me? I love my little Mak as a zero friction, no excuses, grab-and-go scope for solar system and double star observation. It's a great fit for casual at-home urban astronomy of those objects, when most deep sky objects are getting swamped by light pollution.