Lisp macros are powerful, so the core of the language can be kept simple. However, many languages take an alternate approach and codify the most common programming patterns into their specification. The result is a compromise that works for the majority of cases, and better understood than custom macros.

The semantic core is kept simple. That doesn't mean lisps don't provide constructs for common patterns. Ej. Loop, with-open-file or defclass or Racket's for/ constructs.

Plus a good written macro is easy to understand and I'd argue most of macros are good written. In fact I'd like to see a macro that what it does is unclear on a widely use liso library.

> - Compilers can optimize well known constructs better than equivalent macros in lisp.

Lookup compiler macros. Macros can help the compiler optimize the code.