I think that sums everything up, really. This is how shallow the complaints about parens are. No one who actually bothers will make a point about what delimits expressions in a language.
To complain about parens is also doubly wrong, as they do bring something technical to the table.
What Carmack talks about when he says S-expressions are nice for reading in terms of network communication, for example, is that the messages can be read exactly like other expressions over the wire. This is true for any I/O; you can read the data just as if it was code, because the code is data. The same mechanism that reads the code you are executing is available to you to read full expressions through any medium, and use that data/code as you see fit.
I didn't complain about parenthesis. ASM's syntax is also extremely simple, but that doesn't make it easy to use, does it? If everything looks the same, it's hard to scan.
C-like languages provide more visual hooks than Lisp dialects.
The worst example is immediate function application in JavaScript. You get to the end and all of a sudden the }(); tells you everything you've just read is a different context than you thought it was. In Scheme (and probably most Lisps) you'd recognize immediate function application at the beginning as soon as you saw ((.
I don't know how people get really good at JavaScript without learning Scheme first.
With most code conventions, you wrap immediately invoked function expressions (IIFEs) in parens:
var foo = (function () {
...
}());
Well, with block scope (`let` & `const`), IIFEs aren't really needed anymore.
The way it's written implies that it's somewhere inside some block, because "main()" is always the entry point. I wrote it like that because I couldn't be bothered to figure out how this stuff works in Scheme.
With entry point:
Alternatively: