"Anecdotally, they seem to prefer "chaining" constructs, like "someObj.method(arg).otherMethod(arg2).om3(a4).om4(a5)". " The thing with fluent interfaces is th

"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: someObj.method(arg) .otherMethod(arg2) .om3(a4) .om4(a5); That's not that different from formatting Lisp code.