Author: Andy Sy Date: To: True Computer Science Mailing List CC: python Subject: On Python's lambda and FP in general
A couple of years back, I didn't really care if Py3K
retained the lambda keyword or not and implicitly trusted
Guido's judgement on the matter (he was thinking of dropping
Reading those old articles, I now find myself rooting for
lambda (it will be kept, but reduce() will be dropped -
moved to functools that is)... and I am now really starting
to appreciate the stuff I find in the functools module.
I remember a time when I saw the use of map(), reduce(),
etc... in code we were working with and thought it was
frivolous, distracting and made the code hard to read.
Now I find myself imagining situations where they'd
actually make code better/shorter.
changed my P.O.V regarding these FP-style constructs,
and not Scheme nor Lisp! (That or maybe a slowly
maturing - read: growing more mathematical - view of
(What Xah Lee mentions above - the boast that "one line of
Mathematica equals ten to one thousand lines of lisp" also
makes me want to revisit Mathematica... although I always
felt Matlab was less abstruse... any comments on this?)
In fact, after realizing the pulse of Guido's thoughts on
the matter (not every FP-welcoming), I may very likely
revisit Ruby where the FP paradigm is far more welcome
(that and the fact that Matz has mentioned something
about dropping Perl-isms from Ruby)
Question to Rubyists: How does Ruby fare when it comes
to stuff like map, reduce, partial functions, etc.. ?
Is it a very Lisp-ish, few-small-ideas-can-do-everything
a nice intro to the FP-ish side of Javascrpt: