If you mean Lisp as a straightforward expression of &quot;Lambda calculus&quot; then I would agree.<p>However, Lisp as in Common Lisp most certainly has a good amount of syntax. And let&#x27;s not forget macros which amount to user defined syntactic extensions.<p>Here are some examples of syntax built into the standard:<p>Lambda lists have varying syntax depending on context. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;03_d.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;03_d.h...</a><p>Declarations have both standardized and implementation defined syntax for introducing information into the compile-time environment: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;03_c.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;03_c.h...</a><p>Type specifiers introduce new syntax for both standardized and user-defined types: 
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;04_bc.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;04_bc....</a><p>Logical pathnames: 
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;19_ca.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;19_ca....</a><p>Feature expressions:
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;24_aba.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;24_aba...</a><p>And of course, programmable reader macros which is how syntax for every single language primitive in the language is introduced:
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;02_d.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;02_d.h...</a><p>Here&#x27;s an example of a complex standardized macro with its own domain specific syntax (loop):
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;06_a.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lispworks.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;lw70&#x2F;CLHS&#x2F;Body&#x2F;06_a.h...</a><p>Let&#x27;s not forget that most of what one might think of as built-in features in Common Lisp are actually standardized extensions to the language built with macros.<p>All of the power, expressivity, and extensibility of Common Lisp is what makes it my favorite programming language. It&#x27;s what makes everything like above possible and gives power back to the user. But ignoring the syntactic complexity will not win us any followers!<p>TLDR: Common Lisp isn&#x27;t simple, but it exposes one of the most powerful and empowering programming environments we have.