every single definition of a function in List::Util explains the function in terms of reduce(), implying that if you’ld only use reduce() for everything, you wouldn’t need all these other functions.
That seems like a stretch. In the documentation I’m looking at, the reduce analogy always follows last, after an explanation of what the function in question does. The way I see it, it’s there as a guide in case you need to do something slightly different from what the builtin function does.
You and I both know that FP isn’t mainstream, and that it’s been a known technique for well over fifty years, and that there are damn good reasons for it.
There was a long-standing debate over whether structured programming was better than GOTOs in times past. When object-orientation was first championed by C++, its benefits had to be sold to each developer and manager individually.
Draw your own conclusions about what I think of your argument.
The damn good reasons are in the silicon, not the carbon.
Makeshifts last the longest.
In reply to Re^8: RFC: Should join subsume reduce?
by Aristotle
in thread RFC: Should join subsume reduce?
by Roy Johnson
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |