> What if someone can't get to the point where they are able to write useful code? Then I still won't believe it's a Lisp syntax problem, unless they have a ba

> What if someone can't get to the point where they are able to write useful code? Then I still won't believe it's a Lisp syntax problem, unless they have a background of success with other languages. Some people don't have a knack for programming. Among them, some try this and that, and falter in various ways. > And the people who like this family of languages are annoyed and offended that other languages that do not require this are hundreds of times more popular and are used by millions of people. Those other languages are harder because of their syntax. Languages that remove syntax are an affront to the self-image that people have built up over their mastery of convoluted syntax. For most ordinary people, learning programming is equated with learning syntax. When they are memorizing things like that >> has a higher precedence than +, they feel they are getting smarter. The idea that this stuff is not necessary, and that you actually don't know jack if you don't know semantics, is a huge threat. Once a beginner is off into a syntax-heavy language, chances are high we have lost them forever, due to simple ego effects.