3 ms·

that's because you have assumed that the code would _need_ such an intermediate variable, which is often the case in imperative code. I argue that if your code

by chii 3y ago

that's because you have assumed that the code would _need_ such an intermediate variable, which is often the case in imperative code. I argue that if your code _does not need_ this intermediate variable, it makes the code even more readable as it removes more cognitive friction - having fewer things makes it easier to understand.

Barrin92 3y ago
the code doesn't need anything, people reading it do. Names are useful because they make intent explicit. Point free programming in functional languages is often overused. Stuart wrote a good blog post about this a few years ago. "All too often, however, I see the threading macros used in places where they make the code less clear. Early in Clojure’s public existence, there was a fad for “point-free” programming, a kind of code golf without any local variables. This is a fun exercise, but it does not lead to readable code, and I’m relieved that the enthusiasm for this style has worn off. What has remained is a tendency to use threading macros any place they can be made to fit. I think this is a mistake. Rather than making the code easier to read, it makes it harder, forcing the reader to mentally “unwind” the syntax to figure out what it does." https://stuartsierra.com/2018/07/06/threading-with-style https://stuartsierra.com/2018/07/06/threading-with-style
skrebbel 3y ago
If you name your functions and transducers well, you tell the reader what’s being done to the data. If you name your intermediate data structures well, you tell the reader what the data means. Often, the transformations have generic names such as “unique” or “removeEmpty”, but the variables can get domain-specific names such as “validOrders” or “paidAccounts”. I’m a big fan of designing code in a datastructure-first way. If you get the datastructures right, the code itself is often easy to write and easy to read. This matches FP languages really well (eg immutability), but it doesn’t match long fluent chains/pipes of maps, filters and reduces well at all.
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  You can name anonymous functions so your transformations can still have a domain related name associated with it, even if you're using standard library ones.
  - skrebbel 3y ago
    If you’re making a local anonymous function that you call in one place, just so that a generic function gets a more domain specific name, then you might as well just assign the result to a named variable, right? It’s the same benefit with less indirection.

by chii 3y ago

Barrin92 3y ago

the code doesn't need anything, people reading it do. Names are useful because they make intent explicit. Point free programming in functional languages is often overused. Stuart wrote a good blog post about this a few years ago. "All too often, however, I see the threading macros used in places where they make the code less clear. Early in Clojure’s public existence, there was a fad for “point-free” programming, a kind of code golf without any local variables. This is a fun exercise, but it does not lead to readable code, and I’m relieved that the enthusiasm for this style has worn off. What has remained is a tendency to use threading macros any place they can be made to fit. I think this is a mistake. Rather than making the code easier to read, it makes it harder, forcing the reader to mentally “unwind” the syntax to figure out what it does." https://stuartsierra.com/2018/07/06/threading-with-style https://stuartsierra.com/2018/07/06/threading-with-style

skrebbel 3y ago

If you name your functions and transducers well, you tell the reader what’s being done to the data. If you name your intermediate data structures well, you tell the reader what the data means. Often, the transformations have generic names such as “unique” or “removeEmpty”, but the variables can get domain-specific names such as “validOrders” or “paidAccounts”. I’m a big fan of designing code in a datastructure-first way. If you get the datastructures right, the code itself is often easy to write and easy to read. This matches FP languages really well (eg immutability), but it doesn’t match long fluent chains/pipes of maps, filters and reduces well at all.

bcrosby95 3y ago
You can name anonymous functions so your transformations can still have a domain related name associated with it, even if you're using standard library ones.
- skrebbel 3y ago
  If you’re making a local anonymous function that you call in one place, just so that a generic function gets a more domain specific name, then you might as well just assign the result to a named variable, right? It’s the same benefit with less indirection.