> why should the function '>' get a different notation?
I think that the concept of standards is worthy of consideration. While '>' is an operator in scala and other languages, it's also an operator in basic mathematics. And in basic math, we're taught "if x is greater than zero" using the notation of "if x > 0" (parentheses notwithstanding.)
It's only consistent in terms of how clojure presents it, but it's inconsistent with treatment elsewhere. Consistency does go to simplicity, but if it takes some "getting used to", it can't be all that simple.
>It's only consistent in terms of how clojure presents it, but it's inconsistent with treatment elsewhere.
Well, engineers using scientific calculators handled polish notation (and reverse polish notation, like 3 4 + for 3 + 4) just fine for half a century or so...
I think that the concept of standards is worthy of consideration. While '>' is an operator in scala and other languages, it's also an operator in basic mathematics. And in basic math, we're taught "if x is greater than zero" using the notation of "if x > 0" (parentheses notwithstanding.)
It's only consistent in terms of how clojure presents it, but it's inconsistent with treatment elsewhere. Consistency does go to simplicity, but if it takes some "getting used to", it can't be all that simple.