>It was missing the simple, elegant sexp syntax I dearly love In what sense does Janet not have sexp syntax? Seems plenty sexpy to me. Purists seem to say it's

>It was missing the simple, elegant sexp syntax I dearly love In what sense does Janet not have sexp syntax? Seems plenty sexpy to me. Purists seem to say it's not a lisp because its underlying data structure is not (cons-based) lists as in classical lisp, but I don't see what syntactic difference there is.