This is pretty much the reason I choose not to use lisp in my projects. I choose languages that have common programming idologies built into them because (a) I am not a language paradigm designer and don't have time for that and (b) I want other people to be able to quickly look at my code and using their pre-existing knowledge of the language idologies be able to make sense of it.

I write code for people to read (in a format machines can parse and run), and idiots (like myself) are my target platform.

You could use Lisp for everything, just like you could walk anywhere or build a bike yourself, but why would you when you could just pick out a car and just accept the limitations and dangers of driving on the roads? At least with a car you have the years of engineering and research under the hood, and mechanics that have worked on machines like yours before.

Common Lisp, Clojure and Racket all have at the very least a descent set of libraries. And if you use clojure or ABCL, you get all of the jvm libraries too. With FFI you can use any C library from Common Lisp or Racket too. On top of that you get to use languages designed for extensibility, which means that there are actual best practices and examples of how to extend a language without painting yourself into a corner with an unmaintainable mess. Lispers have been doing stuff like this for decades, some of it is very well understood in the various lisp communities.

My favorite example of this power are the various sql DSLs, I can write in lisp something like (query (:select :* :from 'some-table :where ...)) without having to concatenate strings and worry about injections. Yes, I have to learn a new language on top of Common Lisp to use it, but if you know SQL and Lisp, you already know 90% of it. Now I have all the power of lisp in my queries, isn't that cool?

Sometimes developers stay near Lisp (like in Emacs and Emacs Lisp), sometimes the end result uses Lisp, but in a different language on top.

What you learn from Lisp, is for example that macros can extend the language and that there are common idioms how a macro should look&feel. But instead of a completely new language (Perl, Python, Lua, Ruby, Basic, Bash, Rebol, Abap, Groovy, Javascript, ...), with a new syntax ('C-Like', 'Java-Like', 'Pascal-like', ...), a new runtime, a new interpreter, new libraries - instead of that we get a Lisp with some extensions (macros, functions, data structures, s-expressions, ...).

Because using your car all the time will make you fat and lazy, while riding your bike will make you fit and agile.

Fun fact: Both bicycles and Lisp are some of the most developed technologies out there. Bicycle technology is actually much more advanced than cars in terms of maturity and efficiency.

Really, you provided a great metaphor why you in fact should use Lisp.

But the, I did build my own bike, do not own a car, and love Lisp. So go figure.

For example, producing high quality C code (e.g., arthur whitney or djb's, imo); this is difficult or tedious when done "by hand" but can be made easier by using code generation. There is a beautiful conciseness and consistency to the "model" C code I prefer (e.g. by the above authors). It is well-suited to being generated by a "custom interpreters" and a "DSL". Next to Flex, LISP is my personal favorite for constructing such a code generation system.

Python devotees already follow a similar path when they use Cython. But what do you think the quality of the generated C code is like? Have a look at it.

2. LISP is also a great prototyping language. The final application may not be written in LISP. Or at least parts of it might be in other languages.

Selecting from a limited collection of libraries written (perhaps poorly) by others, as is done with many popular languages, strikes me as a "top-down" approach, not building from the ground up. The collection of libraries defines what you can and cannot do. Now, if you just want to do what everyone else is already doing, this is perfectly acceptable. However if you want to break new ground, you will likely have to write some functions yourself. And, personally, I'd rather do this in LISP.

Maybe it's better to learn to use SWIG or a similar codegen tool and wrap any C library function of your choosing for use in LISP, or Lua, or another language that lacks "batteries"? It's encouraging to me when I see programmers express dislike for LISP in online forums. Because I take it as a sign that this is a worthwhile language to master. I've seen similar expressed distaste for what I know to be good quality C code. It goes something like this: Programmer at large in online forum can't understand [insert code/language], therefore [said code/language] is somehow defective.

Seriously, math envy much? Where is it that people formulate these absurd conjectures about mathematics and people who understand mathematics, because every time I hear one it sounds more like defensive attempts to disarm one's feelings of inadequacy by making another group seem inferior or "different" in some way. Furthermore, mathematical capacity and linguistic capacity have no strong links that I know of, so I'm going to need a citation before I swallow that claim, sir.

I don't mean to sound defensive; and, indeed, I'm not sure I'm terribly bad at math (perfect scores on math achievements, AP Calculus BC, diff eq. modeling experience) or have terribly low verbal ability (perfect score on verbal SAT). But I do know that, of the tools I would use to attack a CS problem, linguistic is low on the list. And once I have a solution, my correctness proofs are not linguistic, either.

b) I have read "The Math Gene" and many claims made vis-a-vis maths and linguistics are dubious, at best.

c) There is no "linguistic" way to attack anything, unless what you're attacking is a linguistic problem.

Is your rationale that when given a problem "mathematically overdeveloped" - by the way, if you were wondering about your perceived defensiveness, saying someone is "overdeveloped" in something you claim to not have ample ability in is a dead giveaway - people will first parse it for nouns and gerunds? Because most people think about the problem and only consider your diction if it is relevant to the problem itself.