You are missing the point. You might not know exactly what add() does internally but "+" only gives you a 1 character description, requiring you to know, or assume behaviour of the terms being added. By using a function name instead, you have far more opportunity to describe more clearly what actually is going to happen, requiring less assumption which as we know is the mother of ....
add(foo, bar) isn't any clearer than foo + bar, but usually an overloaded operator doesn't correspond to "add".
For example, in Javascript: "Hello" + " " + "World!". What the operator there is doing is concatenating the strings, so if you had a method to do it you wouldn't call it add - you'd call it concat.
But then you lose the information that both ((usually modular) arithmetic, and strings with concatenation, et al.) are monoids, and have a similar structure, and creating generic functions which might use that symmetry becomes more difficult.
> For example, in Javascript: "Hello" + " " + "World!". What the operator there is doing is concatenating the strings
Hmm, are we talking about (user defined) operator overloading as a language feature, or about overloaded operators? For example, I hate that 1/2 and 1.0/2 are different things in most languages, but I haven't heard anyone call this operator overloading in the context of C.
