Lomography LC-A+ should I get it?

I own somewhere in the order of 40 cameras and am currently borrowing a friend's LC-A because I never saw the point in spending the money they now sell for. There are several very similar cameras that are better built and take higher quality photos but can be cheaper such as:

Olympus XA, XA2

Minox 35 series

AGFA Optima Sensor series

and then there's the somewhat rare camera that the Lomo LC-A is copy of, the Cosina CX-1 and CX-2, which are supposed to be a bit nicer and can sometymes cost less since nobody has ever heard of it!

The thing that's unique about the Lomo is the poor quality of its lens and inaccuracy of its shutter. People like effects these have on the image. And while I agree that this is fun, I don't know if it's worth spending extra on considering the Olympus XA can be purchased for $20, $30 or so and is slightly smaller, definitely going to last longer, has more accurate focusing etc and takes sharper photos.

The LC-A (and Olympus XA) is much different than the Diana. It's vastly more sophisticated with a light meter and electronic shutter capable of multi-second long exposures. It's also pocketable which is really fun. Generally speaking, film and processing are cheaper too.

I encourage you to experiment though! Buy whatever you are inclined to buy and won't bankrupt you. Learn what you like and don't like by trying many different cameras then sell the ones that you realise you aren't into. That's one of the fun parts about shooting with film cameras--they are pretty cheap and can last longer than digital ones so you can buy and sell them with little negative consequence.

it's a toy camera and if you already have Diana, it's about the same.

There's not much you can adjust on it so it's not hard to use. It is not easy to get a good shot.

p.s. Also 120 film is not inexpensive and cost more to get processed and printed.