yes the first step in the right direction. now give us (maybe optional) infix notation and get rid of the parenthesis (also optional). this could gain some momentum in the mainstream (but then lisp (or its successor (clojure++)) would no longer be the elitist language oh my!)

Simple syntax isn't about elitism. It's not like some evil Lisper, decades ago, figured ``I know! let's make simple syntax so almost nobody can understand or write it!''

The simple syntax of Lisp has only one purpose: easy programmatic manipulation (reading, writing, transformation). I.e., less boilerplate. Let me spell that out for you: EASIER MANIPULATION, LESS BOILERPLATE. Elitist much?

There isn't Yet Another Parser Toolkit Of The Week in the Lisp world, there isn't Yet Another Lexer Utility Of The Month in the Lisp world.

Seriously, writing a bunch of parentheses isn't much harder than writing intricate, complex C-like (C++, Java etc.) syntax structures. How the heck did simplicity became synonym of elitism in the subject of Lisp syntax?

Meh. So basically you're asking for "not Lisp"? There are plenty of languages which fill that role already.

See: many modern languages which have a functional influence but more syntax (Scala, Ruby, Groovy, etc., etc.)

thank you both for proving my point.

> now give us (maybe optional) infix notation and get rid of the parenthesis (also optional)

Ruby.

And it's not elitist - it's just not your taste.

See Dylan.