Comment by thayne | Hacker News Reader

Comment by thayne | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I also Julia, but agree with all these points.

And I'll add one more:

It is difficult to chain a value through a series of function calls. Meaning you can't do something like `a.b().c().d().e()`. You either have to store intermediate results in variables, call it like `e(d(c(b(a))))` which IMO is less readable, or do something like this:

    a |> x -> b(x) |> x-> c(x) |> x -> d(x) | x -> e(x)

there is some hope of this getting improving in the future, but in the present, it bugs me.

OP here. Try using `Transducers`. It has problems of its own, but it does address most of my issues with Julia's iterators, including that one.

Why did you write all those anonymous functions? You can just do

  a |> b |> c|> d |> e

although there are style guides that discourage that and instead recommend using a line for each with good temp variable names.

ah, in this case that works. although it doesn't if you have additional arguments to b,c,d and e. I guess I should have crafted my example better.

https://github.com/jkrumbiegel/Chain.jl would probably work there, but you're not the only one who would like to see this in the language/stdlib itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com