point being, you can trivially parse code of any syntax, just like any other language. What makes lisp different is that once you have a parse tree of sexprs, y

point being, you can trivially parse code of any syntax, just like any other language. What makes lisp different is that once you have a parse tree of sexprs, you can then traverse that tree very easily: Lisp has tools built right into the language. You can then very easily transform that tree: In fact, you can write a hook whereby the code being written can provide arbitrary transformers, which are called by the compiler when seen in code: This is all a macro is: it's an API for code to hook into its own compiler: much like Rust's compiler addons. Unlike compiler addons, however, they don't depend on compiler internals: In fact, if a Lisp implementation didn't have macros and readtables, you could write a preprocessor to add them in (but gensym/hygene would be a pain to do). However, this would all be very confusing if the internal tree didn't look like the external representation. This is why Lisp is written in sexprs. The reason you see so many DSLs in lisp being written in a lispy syntax is that lisp hackers, like all other hackers, are fundamentally lazy: Since there's already a lisp syntax parser built into the language, they don't have to write their own, and macros often suffice for the most common reasons to write a DSL, which means that they didn't even have to write a compiler, they just hooked into the existing one. Besides, sexprs provide advantages even if you are writing your own language, and you can overload lisp's syntactic shortcuts for your own purposes.