&gt; I&#x27;m not interested in differentiating between readability and comprehensability.<p>Fair enough, but then please stop using single letter variable names, add type annotations where applicable, provide docstrings and contracts for functions. Comprehensibility is so much more than syntax that I think mixing the two will make for even more interesting, but even less fact-based discussion.<p>&gt; I&#x27;d love to see eye-tracking data which show the tradeoffs between various syntaxes.<p>Yeah, that would be very interesting. The thing is, there is no such data available, but you still are convinced that one kind of syntax is better than the other. I&#x27;m not - from where I stand the differences and tradeoffs in readability of syntaxes, once you know them equally well, seem too minor to measure.<p>&gt; Even the consideration to sprinkle such a trivial expression over multiple lines<p>No. It&#x27;s just different way of getting to the same effect. I don&#x27;t see why would one be worse than the other (splitting things using infix operators vs. splitting things using horizontal and vertical whitespace).<p>Other than that, you completely avoided the familiarity issue. Do you think that we&#x27;re genetically programmed for reading infix syntax? If not, then it means we need to learn infix syntax just like any other. My question was, would someone <i>not yet</i> exposed to infix propaganda have a harder time learning infix (with precedence rules and resolving ambiguities) or prefix?<p>You also ignored my question about the difference in readability when you are equally well trained in both syntaxes. You can&#x27;t compare readability of two syntaxes fairly unless you have about equal amount of skill in both. And the fact that readability is influenced by skill is undeniable. So, in other words, are you sure you&#x27;re as skilled with sexps - that you wrote comparable amount of code - as with infix? Honestly asking.