That is incorrect; the notation (op arg1 arg2) isn&#x27;t the <i>surface syntax</i> that is preferred by some practitioners working in that domain. However, it corresponds 1:1 to its <i>abstract</i> syntax.<p>There are ways to provide infix independently. That is to say, one person can develop this domain specific syntax, and another can develop or customize an infix engine for it.<p>In Common Lisp, there is a well known &quot;infix.cl&quot; module that provides mappings like   a[b,c] -&gt; (aref a b c),  f(x, y) -&gt; (f x y),  a + b  -&gt; (+ a b) and so on.<p>This isn&#x27;t understood as creating a new <i>language</i> as such; it&#x27;s just a sugar. I think it allows new operators to be added with custom precedence and associativity. Or you can hack it however you want.<p>I&#x27;ve never seen it used in any production code.<p>The main purpose it serves is to satisfy people who want to know that it <i>can</i> be done; after that it turns out that they don&#x27;t actually <i>want</i> it done. They just don&#x27;t want to work with a language that can&#x27;t do it.<p>The only program I&#x27;m aware of which actually supports writing mathematics that looks like the mathematics mathematicians write (the actual 2D notation) is Tilton&#x27;s Algebra: written in Common Lisp.<p>The various mathematics languages out there fail.<p>Oh, and not to mention that mathematicians have been trained to work with this:<p><pre><code>    $\sin{(\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta)} = \cos{\theta}$
</code></pre>
That&#x27;s not such a bad example; I can still sort of see the trig identity in that if I squint my eyes.