There is nothing wrong with reduce, it's only sin is to be slightly more difficult to understand than a for loop. The arguments against reduce can be reduced to this phrase.
I can do this with a for loop.
That's it. Anything that you can do with reduce you can do with a for loop, but since the for loop is the "simpler more readable" choice then it must be the right one.
Trouble maker and Problem solver ⚙️🔧
Loves simplicity, hates bullshit 💩.
Productivity obsessed, avid learner 🖥🚀
Sport and outdoor freak 🧗⛰
Metalhead 🎸🤘 Father of 2 👨👩👦👦
Opinions are my own
Trouble maker and Problem solver ⚙️🔧
Loves simplicity, hates bullshit 💩.
Productivity obsessed, avid learner 🖥🚀
Sport and outdoor freak 🧗⛰
Metalhead 🎸🤘 Father of 2 👨👩👦👦
Opinions are my own
mmm. but this is true also for array.foreach and array.map etc. and i find those much nicer and simpler. I love reduce. but i kind of agree with the rant in the tweet to some extent
I'm just repeating the only argument against reduce I think it make sense. By some misfortune reduce doesn't seem to "click" with people in the same way map, filter or forEach do.
There is nothing wrong with
reduce, it's only sin is to be slightly more difficult to understand than aforloop. The arguments againstreducecan be reduced to this phrase.That's it. Anything that you can do with
reduceyou can do with aforloop, but since theforloop is the "simpler more readable" choice then it must be the right one.In this case simpler and more readable is very subjective.
Is it not safe for us to say that once you understand how the
reducefunction works, then reading/understanding it becomes quite easy.I agree that the loops are more readable though but I don't think it's enough to tell folks 'never' to use
reduceAgree. Readability is anyway mostly a matter of being used to read such code. :-)
That's why it's wrapped in quotes.
mmm. but this is true also for array.foreach and array.map etc. and i find those much nicer and simpler. I love reduce. but i kind of agree with the rant in the tweet to some extent
I'm just repeating the only argument against
reduceI think it make sense. By some misfortunereducedoesn't seem to "click" with people in the same waymap,filterorforEachdo.which is a shame, because
map,filter, andforEachare justreducein disguise.Though, for completeness, all of those are just loops in disguise (which isn't an argument for or against it).
Only if you consider loops and tail recursion to be the same thing, which is debatable.
Also, it's only the same when applied to lists.
Other monadic structures may not act as loops at all, when called with
reduceakafold