"Anecdotally, they seem to prefer "chaining" constructs, like "someObj.method(arg).otherMethod(arg2).om3(a4).om4(a5)". "
The thing with fluent interfaces is they're identical to nested Lisp code, except they read left to right instead of right to left. I suspect writers of Hebrew and Arabic would find chaining to be more confusing than nested Lisp code for that reason.
Also worth noting is that a popular style of indenting chained fluent calls is by splitting them by lines, like:
The thing with fluent interfaces is they're identical to nested Lisp code, except they read left to right instead of right to left. I suspect writers of Hebrew and Arabic would find chaining to be more confusing than nested Lisp code for that reason.
Also worth noting is that a popular style of indenting chained fluent calls is by splitting them by lines, like:
That's not that different from formatting Lisp code.