&gt; It&#x27;s not compact at all,<p>You are now arguing against parens. You can have mostly prefix syntax without parens, with blocks delimited with indentation only. Scheme&#x27;s sweet-expressions[1] are one such example. Anyway, please take my example, remove the parens and check if your argument still applies.<p>If it does, then it&#x27;s down to the function names and your (common) misconception that &quot;+&quot; or &quot;^&quot; is somehow more readable, easier to understand or something than &quot;sum&quot; or &quot;sqr&quot;. Where I simply disagree. BTW: why do you insist on using infix syntax for a couple of operators, while you use every other possible operator in a prefix notation and are happy with it? What is the difference between &quot;sqrt&quot; and &quot;-&quot; which makes it ok to use sqrt in prefix form?<p>&gt; Limiting the number of parentheses is also best when possible.<p>No. It&#x27;s only best if it aids readability. This is something that Lisp does rather well actually - there are many examples of equivalent Java and Clojure expressions where Clojure version has half as many parens. Getting rid of parens for the sake of getting rid of parens is counterproductive.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;srfi.schemers.org&#x2F;srfi-110&#x2F;srfi-110.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;srfi.schemers.org&#x2F;srfi-110&#x2F;srfi-110.html</a>