&gt; Starting in elementary school, everyone learns to read math notation. By high school, everyone knows what<p>We&#x27;re either talking about objective readability or personal familiarity. What you say is that, after extensive training for many years, it is easier for people to read notation they were trained to read. This is both true and utterly uninteresting.<p>What is interesting, though, is how much training you need to read prefix and how much training you need to read infix. It&#x27;s obvious that infix takes more time to learn: operator precedence and things like using &quot;-&quot; in both infix and prefix forms make it objectively more complex than prefix notation. You just forgot how much time you spent learning it.<p>&gt; Do you think that, to a non-Lisp programmer, the Lisp version is easier to read? Do you think it is easier to read to a non-programmer who has had high school math?<p>Again, this is not interesting at all. You&#x27;re talking familiarity, not readability. Of course, it&#x27;s easier to read something you&#x27;ve been taught to read. To make this more objective, take an elementary school kid - who wasn&#x27;t exposed to years long infix propaganda - and check both notations&#x27; readability with them.<p>Personally, I learned to read just about <i>any</i> kind of notation used in programming. From my observations, there are only minor differences between the speed of comprehension when using different notations - <i>once you&#x27;ve trained enough</i>. The difference is how much training you need. I can tell you that reading J - an infix language, it&#x27;s an APL descendant - took me much, much longer to master than reading Lisp.