Is this point of your parent commenter right?
> - Not as homoiconic. Only lists are by default.
I read that, too. But I'm not sure what he means by 'Only lists are by default'. If he means that only lists have a literal representation, then it would be slightly wrong - since Common Lisp has literal representations for various numbers, symbols, characters, strings, vectors, arrays, structures, pathnames, ...
Plus the s-expression syntax is user-extensible - making it as 'homoiconic' as the user needs it.
Interesting, thanks.
I'm referring to the fact that Common Lisp does not have a map and set literal by default. It has a lot of homoiconic literals, and is still very homoiconic. And Common Lisp's reader and printer can be extended by the user to add them back in non standard ways. I still personally consider it as a slight cons against Clojure.
Common Lisp also has full language interpreters: these are implementations of Common Lisp which interpret s-expression level code - not byte code.
Common Lisp can easily dump images and make them executable. Saving and starting them is quick.
Common Lisp has implementations mostly written in Common Lisp - including the compiler and large parts of the runtime.