3 ms·
The conversation Bill's touching on -- the tradeoffs between different notations -- is really valuable but I think it misses something a lot of us desire in a s
by darkkindness 7y ago
The conversation Bill's touching on -- the tradeoffs between different notations -- is really valuable but I think it misses something a lot of us desire in a syntax: compositionality. Take the provided "onion" notation, loops, and the "new" syntax. They all look something like this:
┌────────┬────────────────────┐
│myreduce│┌─────┬────────────┐│
│ ││mymap│┌────────┬─┐││
│ ││ ││myfilter│x│││
│ ││ │└────────┴─┘││
│ │└─────┴────────────┘│
└────────┴────────────────────┘
(The math one looks more like this:)
┌────────┬────────────┐
│myreduce│┌────────┬─┐│
│ ││mymap │x││
│ ││ │ ││
│ ││myfilter│ ││
│ │└────────┴─┘│
└────────┴────────────┘
But none of them provide the same kind of "putting pieces together" feeling as this:
┌────────┬─────┬────────┬─┐
│myreduce│mymap│myfilter│x│
└────────┴─────┴────────┴─┘
which we see in the wild as this:
(myreduce ∘ mymap ∘ myfilter)(x)
or this:
x | myfilter | mymap | myreduce
or this:
myreduce mymap myfilter x