A for loop is easy: everyone can conceptualize doing a process N times. A map is not as easy of a concept in some ways (it's more abstract, you are taking N el

A for loop is easy: everyone can conceptualize doing a process N times. A map is not as easy of a concept in some ways (it's more abstract, you are taking N elements of X to N elements of Y). But a map is simpler than a for loop, because there is no state between steps: it's completely symmetrical. The for-loop "complects" each iteration together, even if it's as little as incrementing an integer. It's a side effect, however trivial. To kick it up a notch, now imagine a 2-D loop. Now we have 2 counters. If it's a 2-D array, each addressing operation interacts with 2 counters. But map just needs a second map chained on, and each map is completely "unaware" of the other map. You could map over N dimensions and each map is symmetrical, while the for loop needs an ever increasing number of counters. This slight difference in complexity shows how complexity compounds with other complexity.