> They both have structure so it's not a difference maker in comparisons.
Why not? structure can be different, example: shallow vers. deep. That both have some structure, that in both it's the same structure and that it is expressed in the same way.
> Being tree-like and being easier to read are not necessarily the same thing.
I did not claim that it is the same thing.
> How long do you believe it's realistic to keep at it if the benefits come slow?
You look for reasons not to learn it. You already KNOW that it will take years and will show no result.
> I've concluding after these decades
That makes little sense. After long and intense training lots of things look easy: juggling, flying a helicopter, ...
Unfortunately you haven programmed in Lisp and thus you have no idea about how difficult it would be to learn it.
I have also learned first to code in hex codes, assemblers, BASIC, Pascal, Modula, etc. Still I can read Lisp code just fine.
> I believe Lisp is just plain lacking there
You believe it, before even tried to learn Lisp and understand the difference.
You believe that a hammer is difficult to use, but you have only seen one, not hammered with it.
> I did not claim that [tree-like and easy-to-read] is the same thing.
Your example implied it. If you meant something different, it wasn't explicitly stated. There are multiple factors that play into "easy to read", and they often differ per person. Tree-ness helps in some cases, but not others, or can be over-done.
> After long and intense training lots of things look easy
But reading words PLATEAUS in most people. You can't throw time at it to speed it up much. "Speed reading" courses don't improve comprehension of details, only summary skimming speed.
> I have also learned first to code in hex codes, assemblers, BASIC, Pascal, Modula, etc. Still I can read Lisp code just fine.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
> Unfortunately you haven programmed in Lisp and thus you have no idea about how difficult it would be to learn it.
I dabbled it in many years ago, and just found it hard to read and didn't see that exposure time was paying off in the speed compared to learning/reading other tools/languages. Groking it faster either has a long learning curve, or is the "hockey stick curve" I mentioned earlier.
You haven't explained why it has that comparatively slow ramp up and why I should accept the slow grok start compared to other tools. If it does have the hockey stick grok curve, it stands out unique in that regard and there should be a good reason behind that, yet strangely nobody knows why. You appear to be avoiding these key questions/puzzles. I don't understand why. If you want to promote Lisp, you better start caring about this decades-old conundrum: it's not going away. "Just keep it at forever" is NOT a good answer.
> You believe that a hammer is difficult to use, but you have only seen one, not hammered with it.
After many decades I have a pretty good feel for what kinds of tools, symbols, layouts, and UI's work best for MY eyes and brain. I'm not going to force things for 10+ years to see if my assessment rules of thumb are actually wrong for specific tools. That's not a rational use of anybody's time.
And MANY others have said the same about Lisp, and it has yet to catch on in the mainstream despite being around 60 years and tried in many projects. It does fine in certain niches and continues to do fine in those niches. But if you keep failing mainstream beauty pageants for 60 years, common sense should tell you that the public just plain finds you ugly. Get a clue already! Lisp has buck teeth and a big nose. You may have a thing for buck teeth, but your brain is not a representative specimen of humanity.
Further, there's nothing to force people to use good Lisp style and formatting. If it did go mainstream, more would probably abuse and misuse it. Fans treat their prized possession with care, others don't. Nice things that happen in Nicheville don't scale to big cities.
Why not? structure can be different, example: shallow vers. deep. That both have some structure, that in both it's the same structure and that it is expressed in the same way.
> Being tree-like and being easier to read are not necessarily the same thing.
I did not claim that it is the same thing.
> How long do you believe it's realistic to keep at it if the benefits come slow?
You look for reasons not to learn it. You already KNOW that it will take years and will show no result.
> I've concluding after these decades
That makes little sense. After long and intense training lots of things look easy: juggling, flying a helicopter, ...
Unfortunately you haven programmed in Lisp and thus you have no idea about how difficult it would be to learn it.
I have also learned first to code in hex codes, assemblers, BASIC, Pascal, Modula, etc. Still I can read Lisp code just fine.
> I believe Lisp is just plain lacking there
You believe it, before even tried to learn Lisp and understand the difference.
You believe that a hammer is difficult to use, but you have only seen one, not hammered with it.