> but it's easier to use (once you got used to it)
No, actually it's easier to both read and write and edit sexps once you get used to it. This whole thread is about this: you have no practical Lisp experience yet you claim Lisp is not practical. You couldn't be bothered to actually learn more of a language, but you want to tell us how the experience of using it looks like.
It doesn't work that way. You can only compare things meaningfully when you have comparable knowledge of both. You apparently don't. There are many people who do know both "normal" languages and Lisps and most of them seem to agree that in practice Lisps are as readable as other syntaxes. But you don't want to believe in it for some reason and you don't even want to see for yourself.
> square(x) => x * x;
Why don't you answer my earlier posts, where I show how to make similar syntax in Lisp?
> J and APL aren't popular languages.
But that is completely irrelevant. I'm talking about language features and practice/experience of programming with it, I don't care at all about "popularity".
> If you extend it with your own syntax, it becomes a different language.
...but that's exactly what programming Lisp looks like. Becoming a different language every time you need it to is business as usual in Lisp. Syntactic abstraction - ability to extend language syntax - is central to Lisp programming.
> If you extend it with your own syntax, it becomes a different language.
No. This is exactly what Lisp is for. If you're not transforming it into hundreds of small DSLs (with their own syntax and a wide variety of semantic properties), then you're not using it right, and missing on all of its expressive power. In such case, yes, you may get rightfully puzzled, what all the Lisp buzz is about if it's just all the same stuff, but with an ugly syntax.
No, actually it's easier to both read and write and edit sexps once you get used to it. This whole thread is about this: you have no practical Lisp experience yet you claim Lisp is not practical. You couldn't be bothered to actually learn more of a language, but you want to tell us how the experience of using it looks like.
It doesn't work that way. You can only compare things meaningfully when you have comparable knowledge of both. You apparently don't. There are many people who do know both "normal" languages and Lisps and most of them seem to agree that in practice Lisps are as readable as other syntaxes. But you don't want to believe in it for some reason and you don't even want to see for yourself.
> square(x) => x * x;
Why don't you answer my earlier posts, where I show how to make similar syntax in Lisp?
> J and APL aren't popular languages.
But that is completely irrelevant. I'm talking about language features and practice/experience of programming with it, I don't care at all about "popularity".