Well, you first need to understand the history of C to fully get why it&#x27;s such a terrible language. I have link (below) with both a long video and a brief summary in numbered points. I think the arguments against using it <i>today</i> are solid and conclusive if you&#x27;re not forced to for some pragmatic reason.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;pastebin.com&#x2F;UAQaWuWG" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;pastebin.com&#x2F;UAQaWuWG</a><p>Nonetheless, C got a lot of use via network effects. There actually <i>have</i> been many C dialects out there: compiler variants, extensions for specific systems, safe&#x2F;secure versions of it, parallel&#x2F;concurrent versions, hardware languages... the list goes on. Probably dozens of C variants appeared and mostly failed. The main reason is legacy: whatever replacement exists must support the existing C language usage and codebase. Any fixes that break apps or require rewrites are rejected. Marketing and community effects are another issue.<p>Now, we have to ask what is LISP. I think Graham said it best in that it&#x27;s an axiomatization of computation itself:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;rootsoflisp.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;rootsoflisp.html</a><p>So, LISP is that concept and core. Its nature lets you express various constructs however you want to. You break the problem into smaller pieces while simultaneously modifying the language to better express their solution. What&#x27;s best way of expressing a problem naturally varies from programmer to programmer. The LISP variants therefore are the many ways different people (or communities) looked at solving a problem within the LISP core and philsophy. Some stay purely in it, some diverge wildly from it, and some are in the middle. The fundamental concept and approach, though, with many interpretations on expressing it are why there are so many LISP&#x27;s, though.<p>Clojure, a new expression of the LISP concept&#x2F;core, has advantages expressed well in the first paragraphs of the rationale:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;clojure.org&#x2F;rationale?responseToken=894e644e3f4488b17953fe43bbd586c0" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;clojure.org&#x2F;rationale?responseToken=894e644e3f4488b17...</a><p>This philosophy and use of DSL&#x27;s for expression is no longer unique to LISP. One can see it in REBOL&#x2F;Red quite directly with some takeup in languages such as Haskell and Julia. Forth also does this sort of thing with stack operations. So, we&#x27;re seeing uptake of the idea even in mainstream with them recognizing the benefits. All started with McCarthy&#x27;s reducing all computation down to some primitive, consistent elements that were shown to express or adapt to anything.