> Claims 1 and 2 are false on their face, because (as you point out yourself) the execution is equivalent.
Heh. It appears you didn't interpret the word "appear" as I intended...
> You do of course need to control order of function application, but with function syntax it's all the more clear.
So, is it concat(cross(@a,@b)) or cross(concat(@a,@b)), or something else, and what is the result?
> Optimization meanwhile is the same, except for the most degenerate of examples such as "we hand-crafted the machine code of this operator for this one case".
Are you suggesting it's degenerate to specifically atomically optimize a crosswise concatenate?
> As for [understanding a+b uses a different part of our brain than add(a,b)] I will have to say that I doubt you are right, but I cannot claim either way since there is of course no evidence presented, and probably no research.
I'd be surprised if there was no research but my own investigations have been of brain science as it relates to natural language, not computer languages. The "aiui" was partly because I've taken Larry's word (he was a linguist) that similar principles apply. I hope to dig in to this this weekend and post back here, with a focus on comparing add(a,b) and a + b.
> I do find infix to be pleasant for colloquial, familiar expressions.
I'm going to assume here you mean in computer languages. As in, you find a + b in computer code pleasant.
For me @a X @b ("array a crossed with array b") felt natural and pleasant as did @a X~ @b ("array a cross concatenated with array b").
> I find it to be personally extremely counterproductive for comprehension with unusual constructions.
So a+b works well instead of add(a,b) but a**b fails compared to power(a,b) (or something like that)?