Languages with Java-like syntaxt are much more popular than LISPs in general even not taking JS into account. I think it’s just more intuitive to parse it in human brain, at least to me.
What is most intuitive to you is what you're used to. There's a lot of people that find Lisps syntax intuitive, and becoming familiar with it is mostly just part of the process of using it. All programming languages look foreign to the untrained eye.
Languages with Java-like syntax are taught in schools, and Lisp typically isn't.
I've written some Lisp and I don't find the syntax hard to read, so much as my unfamiliarity with the language itself (what does cons do? What kind of args does it take?).
Plus the occasional cluster migraine when I decide to write a macro, knowing that I'm lucky when regular code runs right the first time. Not really a fault of Lisp, I'm sure me trying to write C++ templates would end about the same.
> Languages with Java-like syntax are taught in schools, and Lisp typically isn't.
Er, my experience is that Lisp or Scheme is taught in literally every CS course out there. Not high-school maybe, but then again in high-school you typically don't get Java either - maybe Scratch, maybe Python.
I know on HN it's fashionable to be pro-LISP, but "it's not taught" is not one of the reasons LISP is not popular.
It wasn't on my curriculum, and I've only worked with one person who was remotely familiar with Lisp.
I've worked with more people that know Haskell than Lisp (though that seems like an outlier, I would guess Lisp/Scheme is still more popular than Haskell).
It's totally possible that I'm an outlier or that it's regional, but I haven't seen any indication that Lisp is commonly known.
