&gt; Infix and symbols don&#x27;t produce cache misses for the vast majority of humans<p>You tried to prove your theory by finding positive evidence. But the evidence is very weak and far fetched.<p>&gt; which support the standpoint that symbols-and-infix arithmetics is good for humans, based on how their mind works.<p>Given that we largely don&#x27;t know how the mind &#x27;works&#x27;, that&#x27;s a weak argument.<p>&gt; Show me a Lisp program with more than casual usage of arithmetics and tell my why you consider it readable.<p>Given that a lot math code is expressed in low-level Fortran, I&#x27;ll take Lisp every day.<p>From a statistics system in Lisp:<p><pre><code>    (defgeneric gaussian-probability-density (x params)
      (:documentation &quot;general gaussian density method.&quot;)
      (:method ((x number)
                (params gaussian-probability-univariate-parameters))
        (\ (exp (* -1.0 (&#x2F; (- x (mean params))
                           (standard-deviation params)))
           (sqrt (* 2.0 pi (variance params))))))
</code></pre>
I find that perfectly readable.