Simulating Machines in Clojure
One thing that stuck with me from a good Clojure book(1) is that using < is greatly preferable to using >.  Coming from an OO background and reading left-to-right, this made sense to me: list the args from smallest to largest.<p>(< 1 2 3) ;; true<p>is a lot more intuitive to me than<p>(> 3 2 1) ;; true<p>even if one or more of those literals is replaced with an argument.  It’s especially apparent with the two-arg use of the function.  This is one of the few places where I still feel like infix notation has an advantage.<p>This isn’t even a nitpick about the article, just a remark about some cognitive dissonance seeing > used here.<p>(1) Maybe Elements of a Clojure?  Not sure that’s it; it was a book referenced on HN which has a whole chapter on naming things.