Simulating Machines in Clojure
One thing that stuck with me from a good Clojure book(1) is that using .  Coming from an OO background and reading left-to-right, this made sense to me: list the args from smallest to largest.(is a lot more intuitive to me than(> 3 2 1) ;; trueeven 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.This isn’t even a nitpick about the article, just a remark about some cognitive dissonance seeing > used here.(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.