[lilactown]

I think it's as much about familiarity than anything else. I've programmed full time in Clojure for the last 6 years, and I find it just as easy to read than other languages I'm familiar with (JavaScript, Java) and way less easy to read than other languages like Haskell or OCaml that have their own syntax lineage. I'm sure if I spent an amount of time becoming familiar with them, I'd find them just as easy as I do Lisp.

There are certain things that languages can do that make syntax easier; for instance, Clojure's default constructs reduce a lot of parens compared to CL by using brackets [] and removing nesting. For instance

    ;; clojure
    (defn sum-and-square [a b]
      (let [sum (+ a b)]
        (* sum sum)))

    ;; common lisp
    (defun sum-and-squaer (a b)
      (let ((sum (+ a b))
        (* sum sum)))

This leads some people to assert (with other reasons too) that Clojure is not in fact a "lisp."

[lispm]

    ;; common lisp
    (defun sum-and-square (a b &aux (sum (+ a b))
      (* sum sum))

[erichocean]

    ;; clojure
    (defn sum-and-square [a b] (let [sum (+ a b)] (* sum sum)))

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to show.

[lispm]

I'm not sure what you are trying to show? Code can be in one line? Okaaaaay...

I was trying to show that one can define local variables without adding another list level via let.

Like if one would/could write in Clojure:

    (defn sum-and-square [a b &blah sum (+ a b)] (* sum sum))

Another Common Lisp example, we'll stick to your one liner format, using infix syntax via a reader macro:

    (defun sum-and-square (a b) #I(sum=a+b,sum*sum))

Before you ask: what am I trying to show? This shows that Common Lisp syntax can be deeply extended by the user and that this is a standard feature of the language. Want a shorter infix notation without s-expressions? Why not...

[samatman]

Reader macros are global and stateful, this is one of the worst things about Common Lisp. Excellent feature, pity we're forever burdened with the implementation.