[raocah]

besides, that shows me how well readable lisp code is. even better than python.

[pekk]

If you are more proficient in Lisp than Python, your Lisp will be more readable than your Python.

[lerax]

Yes. I was wondering about that after I wrote the two client versions! Lisp is really easy to read. I not write yet the docstrings, but still is easy to understand. As much as I enjoy reading code in Python, Lisp is also in my heart.

[CCing]

What ? maybe I'm stupid, but to me the python version seems a a lot more readable. It's only me ? (maybe because I don't know lisp, but neither python, so should be the same)

[raocah]

What programming languages do you know? If you know one or some algol-like one their syntax is very similar to each other and very different from lisp-like langs.

[pjmlp]

And it AOT compiles to native code when needed.

[jaddood]

LISP has no syntactic sugar. It only shows you the important parts, and it does so purely: it shows them just as they are.

[aidenn0]

Lisp not only has syntactic sugar (quote, backquote, all the sharpsign[1] macros), it is possible to add your own syntactic sugar (e.g. [2])

1: http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/02_dh....

2: http://weitz.de/cl-interpol/

[m-j-fox]

Agreed. Except format strings and stream formatting and printing options get confusing quickly.

[fiddlerwoaroof]

You can use a library like https://github.com/fiddlerwoaroof/format-string-builder to make formatted output more readable. But, in general, format strings are like regular expressions: at first they look like alien technology and then, after using them a while, they become quite legible.