They're about equivalent IMO, which yes, means golf.
However, I don't see what's so terrible about learning 3 new functions. Sorry it doesn't look like Javascript anymore.
However, I don't see what's so terrible about learning 3 new functions. Sorry it doesn't look like Javascript anymore.
> If a system is to serve the creative spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual.
Imagine you're reading a musical score. Suddenly there's an unfamiliar symbol. Oh right, you need to turn to page 5 to figure out how it's defined. Oh no, it's defined in terms of more symbols. There goes your flow.
The tools that enable the most creativity are the tools that you can hold in your head completely, while you focus on the task at hand. C is a tool like that, regardless of its other drawbacks. Unfortunately, Haskell isn't quite like that, due to its culture of extracting every little thing and giving it a unique name. Now you need to memorize all these names, instead of e.g. understanding the concept of a "for loop" once and applying it forever.
On the other hand, it is of course tremendously useful in programming to look at some lines of code and be able to say "Oh, so this code this and that", then moving on. If you want more details, dive into that section more. You soar over the code to get an overview and dive down for more specifics when you need to. A music piece can be read (and played) from beginning to end, but that is less useful in programming. Maybe for a late evening with a bottle of wine when you want to appreciate the beauty of a code base that you really like, I guess.
Imagin you're reading a musical score, with no fancy symbols, just a waveform of the sound you should produce. What could be simpler, you say?