3 ms·
Woah strawman. There's no fetishization going on here, it's a micro-tutorial. It's the opposite of profound - and decidedly so. You're focusing on something c
by wellpast 7y ago
Woah strawman. There's no fetishization going on here, it's a micro-tutorial.
It's the opposite of profound - and decidedly so.
You're focusing on something called syntax and legibility, not this article -- which is why you see no diff. between the two expressions.
Of course on a superficial level the difference is nominal.
Why the first one is more powerful than the second goes much deeper. The first expression is both a function definition and a first-class list. The latter is pure syntax.
The consequences of this go deep - but if you're looking for something profound at the surface of things then carry on shaving your yaks.
- wokwokwok 7y agoI think you've missed the point; this is a blog post by Uncle Bob. Everything he says is profound, right? (No, it's not, but to be fair the parent comment also about people assuming just because someone famous says something, it is necessarily also profound). Also, unrelated... > but if you're looking for something profound at the surface of things then carry on shaving your yaks. Doesn't 'yak shaving' refer to the same thing as 'going down a rabbit hole', 'pulling a piece of yarn', etc? Ie. Looking at something that looks simple and then finding it much deeper and more complicated than you expected? Isn't that... exactly what you're talking about with the syntax? Like, you're literally telling the parent to keep pulling at the syntax comparisons, like oh hey, bet you'll find nothing interesting here... then literally also telling them that it is a rabbit hole when you look at how functions are lists? That makes absolutely no sense to me when you use it in that context.