Clojure's license choice is unideal: the GPL-incompatible Eclipse Public License. On the JVM, it's startup performance is quite slow, and personally I don't like the Java environment at all. Furthermore, the syntax choices baffle me: Having to specifically know when a form uses () or [] is just odd. The 'let' form stands out as a good example of Clojure's bad language design choices. There's also no tail-call optimization, one has to explicitly use a 'recur' form to approximate it. I'll stop here.

Now that I've ranted about that, here's what I like about Clojure: The persistent data structures and the concept of transients. Both of these can be implemented in the Lisp of one's preference, though, and someone's already done the basic work for my Lisp of choice: Guile Scheme.

>CL, Scheme doesn't seem to have as much library support

Any decent CL or Scheme implementation gives you access to a C FFI, which provides another ocean of libs. But yes, there are fewer libraries generally, but people were okay with that for Clojure. Clojure hackers wrote a whole bunch of libraries because they were excited about the power the language gave them. If more people would recognize the immense power and value of CL and Scheme, libraries would cease to be an issue, people would write the missing bits.

I work on a GNU/Linux distribution written almost entirely in Scheme. I think that's a pretty practical application, and good evidence that Lisps that aren't Clojure are good choices, too.

Everything you've said in the above quoted text is a selling point for me, not a negative thing. I like having the java environment because it brings a lot to the table. I really like (let [...] ...) because it makes it visually obvious to me where the bindings are. I also like explicitly using recur because it makes intent obvious and lets the compiler complain if its not in a tail position.

I also like the [] vector syntax, since you don't need to quote it (no calls expected there).