I also think that while Boolean expressions in Lisp are less natural than "this AND that OR another", they are clearer when they get large (with good formatting of course).
1 + 2 * 3
one plus two times three
(* (+ 1 2) 3)
times add one two three
So, "the product of the sum of 1 and 2, and 3"? Reads fine in English, as long as you refer to the results instead of describing what to do. :)
(function1 (function2 1 2 3))
function1(function2(1, 2, 3))
Of course 1 + 2 * 3 is more familiar that way, vs the Lisp way. But you have the Lisp way wrong (unless your example was Smalltalk)... it would be:
(+ 1 (* 2 3))
Also, most math functions in Lisp are variadic. So if you have this in infix:
x + y + z + 1
// x plus y plus z plus one
(+ x y z 1)
;; sum x y z and one
It might even be useful to give math operators new names in Lisp, because of the way that things like < > = == are a bit awkward when read as their equivalents in infix. They are all variadic, after all.
Compare:
(x == 10 && y == 10) && (x < y && y < z && z < 100)
(and (== x y 10) (< x y z 100))
(all-true? (same? x y 10) (ascending? x y z 100))
(apply < nums)"Multiply the sum of 1 and 2 with 3".
Erasing that initial bad impression may be a generational thing. Even heroin goes through cycles where a new generation comes along that hasn't seen anyone die of heroin, they make heroin cool for a while, and then the horrifying results inoculate the culture against the idea that heroin is cool for another fifteen or twenty years. Lisp will get another chance, and it can afford to wait.
Also, I think next time around it won't be Lisp, the universal solution. It will be a Lisp. It might not even be called Lisp. It might be called "Clojure" or something odd like that ;-)
More and more I hear people 'they've been doing this in lisp all along' so I make a naive guess that in the future lisp genes will reappear in more favorable settings and won't get dismissed as they were before. It's already happening as for gc's and closure right ?