CIRCLE WITH A DOT

@dev wait what is the soup doing here

@tubetime indeed looks green

@arclight Regarding math, at least for me, all lisps feel clunky and much less readable than the infix standard notation expressions, especially when compared to something like Fortran, Julia, or Python with the appropriate libraries.

Regarding missing something, and the "what is this even good for" feeling, I don't think you are missing much.

Some problems are lispy but usually, not things that scream "physics," and the reason is pretty simple (IMO): the languages we use for physics and maybe even physics in itself is full of mutability, and for anything more involved, also lacks locality in the sense that basically everything affects everything else in a deeply connected way, making the approach of coding by splitting effects into well bounded functions with clear data boundaries not so efficient.

In my experience, that's one reason why game-deving with functional languages is such a pain.

There are some things beyond recursion that I do like in lisps and seem to be broadly useful, like pattern matching, but that's everywhere now, not only in lisps.

With all that said, you can definitely be more fluent than ~3 lines chunks, just checked some Racket code and I myself can follow ~20 line functions and still think they are readable, albeit my personal sweet spot is probably more like 5-15 lines. Nesting does get me much quicker though, I can't follow too much more than what you mentioned.

@arclight the subject might not be doing them any favours here