>>67
the only thing simple about lisp is its translation to an abstract syntax tree. The overall language and implementation is incredibly complicated. You are talking about syntax, which is really language independent. One could make a sexp to c compiler very easily. It is just another encoding of the abstract syntax tree.
>>69
Well, it is almost a function definition, or it is almost a type declaration. You forgot to add { with code in it } at the end, or a semi colon.
char (*(*x())[])();
x is a function that returns a pointer to an array of pointers to functions that return char.
x() is a pointer to an array of pointers to functions that return char.
x()[n] is a pointer to a function that returns char.
x()[n]() is a char.
This syntax is useful for keeping track of types. You may say that keeping track of types in code is complex, but there are types, no matter how you look at it. Values at run time will have types, and if the types are not documented in the code, then you have to keep track of the types in your head, which I find more complex.