If you've been around programming for a while you've no doubt come across the Lisp family of languages. One of the oldest languages still in use, Lisp has contributed much to the profession, but it's probably most infmamous for the "S-expression". S-expressions are a text based serialization of the languages core-data structures. Since Lisp is written in terms of those same data structures, the S-expression is also the syntax of the langauge.
To give you a taste if you're not familar, here's a simple Clojure function for parsing an string identifier. The identifier is passed in as either a numeric string (123) or a hash ID (tlXyzzy), and the function parses either form into a number.
(defn decode-list-id [ list-id ]
(or (try-parse-integer list-id)
(hashid/decode :tl list-id)))
In a "C-Like Langauge", the same logic looks more or less like this:
function decodeListId(listId) {
return tryParseInteger(listId) || hashid::decode("tl", listId);
}
Right off the bat, you'll notice a heavy reliance on parenthesis to delimit logical blocks. With the exception of the argument list ([ list-id ]), every logical grouping in the code is delimited by parenthesis. You'll also notice the variable name (list-id) contains a hyphen - not allowed in C-like languages. I could point out more, but even stopping there, it's clear that Lisp syntax is unusual to modern eyes.
What may be even more unusual about this syntax is the fact that some people like it. I count myself among them. It's strange, but there are reasons for the strangeness. The strangeness, while it imposes costs, also offers benefits. It's these benefits that I wish to discuss.
Before I continue, I'd like to first credit Fernando Borretti's recent post on Lisp syntax. It's always good to see a defense of Lisp syntax, and I think his article nicely illustrates the way that the syntax of the langauage supports one of Lisp's other hallmark features: macros. If you haven't already read it, you should click that link and read it now. That said, there's more to the story, which is why I'm writing something myself.
If you've studied compilers, it's probably struck you how much of the first part of the source is spent on various aspects of language parsing. You'll study lexical analysis, which lets you divide streams of characters into tokens. Once you understand the basics of lexical analysis, you'll them study how to fold linear sequences of tokens into trees according to a grammar. Then, a few more tree transformations, and finally linearization back to a sequence of instructions for some more primitive machine. Lisp's syntax concerns the first two steps of this - lexical and syntactic analysis.
Lexical analysis for Lisp is very similar to lexical analysis for other languages. The main differences are the rules are a bit different. Lisp allows hyphens in symbols (see above), and other languages do not. This changes how the language looks, but isn't a huge structural advantage to Lisp's syntax:
(defn decodeListIid [ listId ]
(or (tryParseInteger listId)
(hashid/decode :tl listId)))
Where things get interesting for Lisp is in the syntactic analysis stage - the folding of linear lists of tokens into trees. One of the first parsing techniques you might learn while studying compilers is known as predictive recursive descent, specifically for LL(1) grammars. Without going into details, these are simple parsers to write by hand. The grammar of an LL(1) language can be mapped directly to collections of functions. Then, if there's a choice to be made during parsing, it can always be resolved by looking a single token ahead to predict the next rule you need to follow. These parsers have many limitations in what they can parse (no infix expressions), but they can parse quite a bit, and they're easy to write.
Do you see where this is going? Lisp falls into the category of languages that can easily be parsed using a recursive descent parser. Another way to put it is that it doesn't take a lot of sophistication to impart structure on a sequence of characters representing a Lisp program. While It is may be hard to write a C++ parser, it's comparatively easy to write one for Lisp. Thanks to the simple nature of a Lisp's grammar, the language really wears its syntax tree on its sleeve. This is and has been one of the key advantages Lisp derives from its syntax.
The first advantage is that simple parsing makes for simple tooling. If it's easier to write a parser for a language, it's easier to write external tools for that langauge that understand it in terms of its syntax. Emacs' paredit-mode is a good example of this. paredit-mode offers commands for interacting with Lisp code on the level of its syntactic structure. It lets you cut text based on subexpressions, swap subexpressions around, and similar sorts of operations based on the structure of the language. It is easier to write tools that operate on a langauge like this if the syntax is easily parsed. To see what I mean, imagine a form of paredit-mode for C++ and think how hard it would be to cut a subexpression there. What sorts of parsing capabilities would that command require, and how would it handle the case where code in the editor is only partially correct/
This is also true for human users of this sort of tooling. Lisp's simple grammar enables it to wear its structure on its sleeve for automatic tools, but also for human users of those tools. The properties of Lisp that make it easy for tools to identify a specific subexpression also make it easier for human readers of a block of code to identify that same subexpression. To put it in terms of paredit-mode, it's easier for human readers to understand what the commands of that mode will do, since the syntactic structure of the language is so much more evident.
A side benefit to a simple grammar is that simpler grammars are more easily extended. Fernando Boretti speaks to the power of Lisp macros in his article, but Common Lisp also offers reader macros. A reader macro is bound to a character or sequence of characters, and receives control when the standard Lisp reader encounters that sqeuence. The standard Lisp reader will pass in the input stream and allow the reader macro function to do what it wants, returning a Lisp value reflecting the content of what it read. This can be used to do things like add support for XML literals or infix expressions.
If the implications are not totally clear, Lisp's syntactic design is arguably easier for tools, and it allows easier extension to completely different syntaxes. The only constraint is that the reader macro has to accepts its input as a Lisp input stream, process somehow with Lisp code, and then return the value it "read" as a single Lisp value. It's very capable, and fits naturally into the simple lexical and syntactic structure of a Lisp. Infix languages have tried to be this extensible, but have largely failed, due to the complexity of the task.
Of course, the power of Lisp reader macros is also their weakness. By operating at the level of character streams (rather than Lisp data values) they make it impossible for external tools to fully parse Common Lisp source text. As soon as a Lisp reader macro becomes involved, there exists the possiblity of character sequences in the source text that are entirely outside the realm of a standard s-expression. This is like JSX embedded in JavaScript or SQL embedded in C - blocks of text that are totally foreign to the dominant language of the source file. While it's possible to add special cases for specific sorts of reader macros, it's not possible to do this in general. The first reader macro you write will break your external tools' ability to reason about the code that use it.
This problem provides a great example of where Clojure deviates from the Common Lisp tradition. Rather than providing full reader macros, Clojure offers tagged literals. Unlike a reader macro, a tagged literal never gets control over the reader's input stream. Rather, it gets an opportunity at read-time to process a value that's already been read by the standard reader. What this means is that a tagged literal process data very early in the compilation process, but it does not have the freedom to deviate from the standard syntax of a Clojure S-expression. This implies both flexibility to customize the reader and the ability for external tools to fully understand ahead of time the syntax of a Clojure source file, regardless of whether or not it uses tagged literals. Whether or not this is a good trade off might be a matter of debate, but it's in the context of a form of customization that most languages don't offer at all.
To be clear, there's more to the story. As Fernando Boretti mentions in his article, Lisp's uniform syntax extends across the language. A macro invocation looks the same as a special form, a function call, or a defstruct. Disambiguting between the various semantics of a Lisp form requires you to understand the context of the form and how symbols within that form are bound to meanings within this context. Put more simply, a function call and a macro invocation can look the same, even though they may have totally different meanings. This is a problem, and it's a problem that directly arises from the simplicity of Lisp syntax I extoll above. I don't have a solution to this problem other than to observe that if you're going to adopt Lisp syntax and face the problems of that syntax, you'd do well to fully understand and use the benefits of that syntax as compensation. Everything in engineering, as in life, is a tradeoff.
It's that last observation that's my main point. We live in a world where the mathematical tradition has, for centuries, been infix expressions. This has carried through to programming, that has also significantly converged on C-like syntax for its dominant languages. Lisp stands against both of these traditions in its choice of prefix expressions written in a simpler grammar than the norm. There are costs to this choice, and these costs tend to be immediately obvious. There are also benefits, and these benefits take time to make themselves known. If you have that time, it can be a a rewarding thing to explore the possibilities, even if you never get the chance to use them directly in production.