Actually it's not so simple. JavaScript supported lambda expressions long before fat arrow functions came along.
The functions in this article are not anonymous and they are not passed around as data so I'm not certain if they would technically be considered lambda expressions.
I am certain, however, that the functions in this article are colloquially referred to as "arrow" or "fat arrow" functions in the JavaScript community.
That does not mean that the JavaScript community knew what they're talking about. ;-)
Additionally to my personal and probably debatable perception that referring to a certain lambda notation as an "arrow function" because an arrow is involved is like referring to a C pointer as an "asterisk variable" because an asterisk is involved, I would say const whatever = num => num * 2is a lambda function because the return value is used for output, not just discarded...?
The technical distinctions are tricky, so I really can't say for sure. We might need to dig up Alonzo Church to settle the matter. :)
I do think that arrow functions are not always lambda expressions, and lambda expressions are not always arrow functions. So arrow != labmda.
Here are a couple interesting examples that show some of the gray areas though:
const whatever = num => num * 2
anonymous: true (edit: it's an anonymous function set to a variable, see comment below)
arrow: true
lambda: ...I don't think so
It's named, so what is the distinction between this syntax and a "normal" function declaration? Both can be passed around as first class citizens so what is it about the arrow function that would make it a lambda, but not the function declaration?
var myArrays = [[1,2,3], [4,5,6]]
myArrays.forEach(array => array.splice(0,1))
In this case, the return value is discarded but I think that arrow function still qualifies as a lambda expression because it's anonymous and because of how it's used. I used "splice" in this example because it does mutate the array, but even if it were a "slice" instead I think it would have to be considered a lambda...though, not a useful one!
Well...yes! Good call. I'll revise my comment above.
I know there is a difference between the function declaration and function expressions, and in the example I gave it's definitely not using the function declaration.
As for what technically counts as being a lambda expression or not...I really don't know.
Actually it's not so simple. JavaScript supported lambda expressions long before fat arrow functions came along.
The functions in this article are not anonymous and they are not passed around as data so I'm not certain if they would technically be considered lambda expressions.
I am certain, however, that the functions in this article are colloquially referred to as "arrow" or "fat arrow" functions in the JavaScript community.
That does not mean that the JavaScript community knew what they're talking about. ;-)
Additionally to my personal and probably debatable perception that referring to a certain lambda notation as an "arrow function" because an arrow is involved is like referring to a C pointer as an "asterisk variable" because an asterisk is involved, I would say
const whatever = num => num * 2is a lambda function because the return value is used for output, not just discarded...?The technical distinctions are tricky, so I really can't say for sure. We might need to dig up Alonzo Church to settle the matter. :)
I do think that arrow functions are not always lambda expressions, and lambda expressions are not always arrow functions. So arrow != labmda.
Here are a couple interesting examples that show some of the gray areas though:
const whatever = num => num * 2anonymous: true (edit: it's an anonymous function set to a variable, see comment below)
arrow: true
lambda: ...I don't think so
It's named, so what is the distinction between this syntax and a "normal" function declaration? Both can be passed around as first class citizens so what is it about the arrow function that would make it a lambda, but not the function declaration?
var myArrays = [[1,2,3], [4,5,6]]myArrays.forEach(array => array.splice(0,1))
anonymous: true
arrow: true
lambda: ...I think yes?
In this case, the return value is discarded but I think that arrow function still qualifies as a lambda expression because it's anonymous and because of how it's used. I used "splice" in this example because it does mutate the array, but even if it were a "slice" instead I think it would have to be considered a lambda...though, not a useful one!
fetch('https://dev.to').then(function(response) { console.log(response); })anonymous: true
arrow: false
lambda: ...I think yes?
This uses an old skool anonymous function, it's not an arrow function but I believe it's still a lambda expression.
Edit: typo, adding non-arrow function
Apologies my question but in your first example. Isn't it just a anonymous function that has been assigned to a variable?
Well...yes! Good call. I'll revise my comment above.
I know there is a difference between the function declaration and function expressions, and in the example I gave it's definitely not using the function declaration.
As for what technically counts as being a lambda expression or not...I really don't know.
Quite hard to tell it seems. Although, this is a good summary