What I should have said was that Lisp has no commands or structure that can't be changed. Some might argue that this is it's strength but I have seen hundreds of samples of Lisp and it looks very confusing. I don't normally program in C# or Java or many other languages but I can normally understand their code. (Lisp and functional languages are the most opaque to me)
My language uses a byte code interpreter and that byte code is in polish prefix notation just like Lisp. I wouldn't want to code in my byte code either (even if the byte codes were replaced with keywords instead of the binary code). Polish prefix notation is great for the compiler but not very good for people.
Beyond that, your objections seem to be based upon familiarity. I had similar ones before I started using Clojure more often. I think the notation is just fine - it's not much different from imperative languages except they place the parenthesis in a different spot - I think it's more the nesting than the notation, which isn't a common tactic in imperative languages.
I still use imperative languages during my day job so I can decipher imperative code easier, but I am much better at deciphering functional code than I used to be.
What you find easy to read depends on what you're used to reading.
You will have a better time on HN if you swap these two more often than not.
> You can indent a Lisp program in any way but the language doesn't require any at all.
Off the top of my head, isn't this true of basically all languages? Except one, and it got a lot of criticism for it (Python).