>>36
Also, some details about Lisp are wrong:
functional
It's hardly purely functional, it's multi-paradigm, so if you want to write imperative, declarative, OO or functional code, you can do just that. Functional style may be preferred to some degree, but nothing stop you from using the same style in C (except that C's facilities are not as strong in this regard)
high level
Yes, but it can also be used for mid and low-level stuff.
If you want to access the hardware or memory directly, you can do that - most implementations provide FFIs, there's also portable FFI implementations and it can also be done fairly efficiently, especially if you use implementation-specific stuff. Most implementations which compile to native code also have their own assemblers and assemblers can also be implemented portably.
(byte-)interpreted
Just a handful of implementations are. Most compile straight to native code. Interpreted-only implementations are actually a minority - the only one I can think of is GNU CLISP. SBCL, CCL, ECL, ACL, LispWorks, ... all compile to native code, but some also have optional interpreters.
One thing you did get right and that is that most Lisps are GCed, but same is true for most high-level languages.