Comparing newLISP with Clojure or Common Lisp is a bit like comparing a sandwich with a three-course meal. If you must compare languages, it's probably better to consider newLISP with Lua or ELisp or AppleScript or Perl or whatever.
Each language has its own sweet spots. It's possible that newLISP is another tool useful enough to have in one's toolbox, alongside all those other tools. "A craftsman uses the right tool for each job; an amateur uses the same tool for every job."
In practice, I haven't found dynamic scoping or lack of compilation to be a huge problem. If you run out of speed, you need to change horses.
The most serious problem with newLISP is, I think, the name. The author managed to choose and combine the seven letters of the alphabet most likely to irritate the most irritable section of the programming community.
Each language has its own sweet spots. It's possible that newLISP is another tool useful enough to have in one's toolbox, alongside all those other tools. "A craftsman uses the right tool for each job; an amateur uses the same tool for every job."
In practice, I haven't found dynamic scoping or lack of compilation to be a huge problem. If you run out of speed, you need to change horses.
The most serious problem with newLISP is, I think, the name. The author managed to choose and combine the seven letters of the alphabet most likely to irritate the most irritable section of the programming community.