Personally, all I can say is: Other people can choose to accept or reject parentheses. As people who know and understand the power and inherent elegance of the language we need to skip the step where we yearn for recognition and go straight to the "doing really fantastic stuff and making you jealous" portion of the narrative.
We dote too much on the history of Lisp w/r/t Clojure IMO. Clojure is not CL. Clojure is not Scheme. Clojure is not Haskell. Clojure is Clojure. It has its own state, identity, and time. Make great stuff with it and other people will follow. My feeling is that was need to quit waiting for approval and simply draw the line in the sand. I would be happy to forfeit future programming job opportunities if it meant committing to a language that solves the problems I care about. Will everyone do that? Unlikely. Will the people who know better than to settle for second best do it? I have a feeling the answer there is closer to yes.
This is well known and has allready been done for clojure (cant remember where I saw it).
There are problems with this syntax when you combine it with macros. There is some work done to solve this but not much. For a (theoretical) lisp that works this way, see here: http://users.rcn.com/david-moon/PLOT/
We dote too much on the history of Lisp w/r/t Clojure IMO. Clojure is not CL. Clojure is not Scheme. Clojure is not Haskell. Clojure is Clojure. It has its own state, identity, and time. Make great stuff with it and other people will follow. My feeling is that was need to quit waiting for approval and simply draw the line in the sand. I would be happy to forfeit future programming job opportunities if it meant committing to a language that solves the problems I care about. Will everyone do that? Unlikely. Will the people who know better than to settle for second best do it? I have a feeling the answer there is closer to yes.