"the implementers have tended to appropriate Lispy syntax" But doesn't it make sense that, once you're extending a Lisp dialect to add some Prolog implementati

"the implementers have tended to appropriate Lispy syntax" But doesn't it make sense that, once you're extending a Lisp dialect to add some Prolog implementation, you'll keep using the Lisp syntax? I don't see it a question of lazyness or love: one of the main point so many people accept to deal with Lisp's seemingly crazy parentheses is homoiconicity. It's not that parentheses are that great and that we love seeing: ))))))))) or )))]))]))) (in Clojure). It's that the benefit (homoiconicity) far outweight the cost of using that syntax.