Hacker News Reader

> accumulator

I had similar trouble, but I know call the "accumulator" just "previous" which makes it more logical in my head:

.reduce( (previous, current) => previous+current, 0 );

That's an interesting idea. I might get hung up for cases where "previous" is a different type from "current", like if you're reducing a list of objects into a single object. You've got the current item of the array and the current state of the accumulator, so they're kind of both current. Or you've got the last state and current item, but "last" is ambiguous.

In general, I find that if something is hard to describe in plain language, it's hard to code. Reducers are a bit clunky to talk about, which could make them harder to reason about, too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com