3 ms·

FWIW, I'm plenty familiar with functional programming and iterator chains, and I still think for loops often beat them--not only from a "visual noise" perspecti

FWIW, I'm plenty familiar with functional programming and iterator chains, and I still think for loops often beat them--not only from a "visual noise" perspective, but because complex iterator chains are harder to read than equivalent for loops (particularly when you have to deal with errors-as-values and short circuiting or other patterns) and for simple tasks iterator chains might be marginally simpler but the absolute complexity of the task is so low that a for loop is fine. > But you should be familiar enough that you stop randomly badmouthing map and filter like you have some sort of anti-functional-programming Tourette's syndrome. I've been moderated for saying much tamer, FYI.

usrusr 2y ago
Fully agree on the easier to read part. But despite all "coffee is read more often than written" arguments, I see a lot of merit in the functional way. There are a hundred ways to write the loop slightly wrong, or with intended behavior slightly different from the regular. The functional variant: not so much. A small variation from the standard loop in functional style is visible. Very visible. Unintended ones simple won't happen, and the intended ones are an eyesore. An eyesore impossible to miss reading, whereas a subtle variation of the imperative loop is exactly that, subtle. Easy to miss. Readability advantage functional. In my book, keeping simple things simple and the not simple things not simple beats simplicity everywhere. This is actually what I consider a big drawback of functional style: often the not-simple parts are way too condensed, almost indistinguishable from trivialities. But in the loop scenario it's often the reverse. My happy place, when writing, would be an environment that has enough AST-level understanding to transform between both styles. (other advantages of functional style: skills and habits transfer to both async and parallel, the imperative loop: not so much)

usrusr 2y ago

Fully agree on the easier to read part. But despite all "coffee is read more often than written" arguments, I see a lot of merit in the functional way. There are a hundred ways to write the loop slightly wrong, or with intended behavior slightly different from the regular. The functional variant: not so much. A small variation from the standard loop in functional style is visible. Very visible. Unintended ones simple won't happen, and the intended ones are an eyesore. An eyesore impossible to miss reading, whereas a subtle variation of the imperative loop is exactly that, subtle. Easy to miss. Readability advantage functional. In my book, keeping simple things simple and the not simple things not simple beats simplicity everywhere. This is actually what I consider a big drawback of functional style: often the not-simple parts are way too condensed, almost indistinguishable from trivialities. But in the loop scenario it's often the reverse. My happy place, when writing, would be an environment that has enough AST-level understanding to transform between both styles. (other advantages of functional style: skills and habits transfer to both async and parallel, the imperative loop: not so much)