3 ms·
Use it every day and you'll probably think different about it. (baz 33 (bar 12 (foo 33 (+ 1 42)))) Is way harder to read than: (->> (+ 1 42) (foo
by timbaldridge 14y ago
Use it every day and you'll probably think different about it.
(baz 33 (bar 12 (foo 33 (+ 1 42))))
Is way harder to read than:
(->> (+ 1 42)
(foo 33)
(bar 12)
(baz 33))
- dkersten 14y agoI totally agree and personally love using -> and ->> but I've heard people say that the idiomatic way is to use let instead: (let [fortythree (+ 1 42) foo33 (foo 33 fortythree) bar12 (bar 12 foo33) baz33 (baz 33 bar12)] baz33) I understand the logic behind preferring let and a lot of times it really does make things clearer to have everything named and explicit, but especially in prototype code, I find the need to name things to get in the way. I would prefer not naming things over badly named things, for example, and that's usually how I decide between let and thrush (all things being otherwise equal).