Timeline for How can I _read_ functional JavaScript code?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13, 2017 at 20:08 | vote | accept | Andrew Willems | ||
| Feb 13, 2017 at 19:43 | comment | added | Karl Bielefeldt | There are certain situations where eliminating intermediate variables can add clarity. For example, in FP you almost never want an index into an array. Also sometimes there isn't a great name for the intermediate result. In my experience, though, most people tend to err too far the other way. | |
| Feb 13, 2017 at 17:59 | comment | added | Andrew Willems | I've heard it said that having long chains and/or nesting of methods eliminates unnecessary intermediate variables. In contrast, your answer breaks my chains/nesting into intermediate stand-alone statements using well-named intermediate variables. I find your code more readable in this case, but I'm wonder how general you're trying to be. Are you saying that long method chains and/or deep nesting are often or even always an anti-pattern to be avoided, or are there times when they bring significant benefit? And is the answer to that question different for functional versus imperative coding? | |
| Feb 11, 2017 at 12:35 | comment | added | Andrew Willems | Definitely no offence taken! While I will still maintain that I know some things about functional programming, maybe my assertions in the question about how much I know were a little over-stated. I am really a relative beginner. So seeing how this particular attempt of mine can be re-written in such a concise clear but still functional way seems like gold...thank you. I'll be studying your re-write carefully. | |
| Feb 11, 2017 at 7:07 | history | answered | Karl Bielefeldt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |