I could attempt to prove to you that "conventional syntax" is inherently superior to Lisp syntax, but that would be a waste of both of our time.
You sound as if you think that putting salt on grapefruit is inherently strange, while in actuality there's a very good reason to do so: it reduces the perception of bitterness.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to like Lisp's syntax, but empirically most people prefer the ALGOL-like syntax
Empirically, most people prefer what they are already familiar with, so I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove, other than most people are already more familiar with Algol-like syntax.
For me, Lisp syntax has the definitive advantage that the first identifier in every expression tells me what to expect. I.e., I don't have to scan to the right to figure out what kind of expression this is. For me, this makes code much more readable. And this makes Lisp syntax more "nice".
add 1 and 2 and 3
The syntax is a bit terse but if you teach people a good way to read it it becomes much more readable than 1+2+3
The only reason we prefer that way is that we are thought that syntax when we do math in school, I have found it much easier to teach people lisp who have no or very little formal education in math.
(/ (+ (- b) (sqrt (- (* b b) (* 4 a c)))) (* 2 a))
Right, that's much easier than
(-b + sqrt(b*b - 4*a*c)) / (2*a)
I see you omitted some parenthesis in the "conventional" expression, relying on the fact that multiplication takes priority over substraction. Making this fact explicit is exactly what makes Lisp better, especially for more complex domains: delegating priorities to the notation, freeing brain capacity for the actual problem.
(defun foo (a b c)
#I(
(-b + sqrt(b*b - 4*a*c)) / (2*a)
))
CL-USER 8 > (foo 1 2 3)
#C(-1.0 1.4142135)It may be bikeshedding, but I would not let 'blue is better than red, because the sky is blue' pass either.
(/ (+ (- b)
(sqrt (- (* b b)
(* 4 a c))))
(* 2 a))
* there's a quotient of 2 things
* the first thing is a sum of -b and a sqrt
* the second thing is a product
and so on. Pretty nice. Of course, mathematical notation is more terse.
Yes, trying to prove falsehoods is a waste of time.
Conventional syntax is neither conventional nor suited to humans. (If it's "conventional", why isn't there more agreement as to what it is? If it's suited to humans, why aren't there more than 100 who actually know it for any given language?)