LISP syntax is superior to the more-ubiquitous infix notation based languages (Python, C++, Java, Ruby, Prolog, etc). Independent of compiler and platform optimizations and features, as a language construct, LISP is truly infinite.
The problem with the FORTRAN-inspired languages isn't infix notation, it's the bureaucratic mess that is operator precedence. APL and J have infix operators without operator precedence, and they're just as infinite as LISP.
Also, what really is wrong with Prolog? You see some infix-representations of expressions in "is" clauses, but those infix operators are syntactic sugars for what are actually predicates like everything else in Prolog. Prolog gets a pass in my book.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
LISP syntax is superior to the more-ubiquitous infix notation based languages (Python, C++, Java, Ruby, Prolog, etc). Independent of compiler and platform optimizations and features, as a language construct, LISP is truly infinite.
The problem with the FORTRAN-inspired languages isn't infix notation, it's the bureaucratic mess that is operator precedence. APL and J have infix operators without operator precedence, and they're just as infinite as LISP.
Also, what really is wrong with Prolog? You see some infix-representations of expressions in "is" clauses, but those infix operators are syntactic sugars for what are actually predicates like everything else in Prolog. Prolog gets a pass in my book.