A contrived example in C#/LINQ Enumerable.Range(1, 100) .Where(n => n % 2 == 0) .Select(n => n * 2) .ToList(); And as a transducer it could

A contrived example in C#/LINQ Enumerable.Range(1, 100) .Where(n => n % 2 == 0) .Select(n => n * 2) .ToList(); And as a transducer it could looks something like this? sequence( Enumerable.Range(1, 100), compose( filter(n => n %2 == 0), map(x => x + 1) ) ).ToList(); On the linq side it would create only 2 enumerable objects (one for where and select) and the ToList would result in a copy the object pointer as it was passing through each enumerable. For the transducer example rather than having 2 enumerable's we would have 2 transducer objects? I absolutely understand the case where a language's map/filter/reduce/etc results in a whole new list, but for the above case the performance/memory overhead improvement doesn't see that huge and really minor. The fact that it removes the overhead of having to support IEnumerable and as you mentioned is only dealing with functions is what seems like a win. At first I was thinking that plain old LINQ is also more readable, but my contrived c# transducer example doesn't look that bad in the end. Am I incorrect on any of this?