Forth and Lisp have extremely simple syntaxes with trivial parser

Had a good head-scratch, but I couldn't come up with anything that wasn't LISP-like or Forth-like (i.e., concatenative).

Brainfuck is literally the simplest.

>>58491523
I don't think he's after tarpits.

And there are simpler (tarpit) alternatives to Brainfuck. Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iota_and_Jot

>>58490324
>that font
>that syntax highlighting
Disguisting

File: multasm.gif (27KB, 600x431px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x431px

>>58490324
The syntax of assembly languages is actually really simple.
The language itself might not be elegant, but there are almost no syntactical constructs, which makes it really simple.

>>58490324
Lua is also rather simple.
The syntax is conventional but it's kept as simple as possible.
The grammar is at the very end of the manual and it only needs 23 rules.
http://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#9

>>58491523
A unary number representing a goedel-encoding is simpler.