> The second is, well, mostly annoying to me because of the vigor of its advocates far out of proportion to either its programming utility or its mind expansion characteristics.
Thanks to closures, map/reduce function callbacks in Javascript are extremely handy.
Please link me to something like a stackoverflow answer with "vigor" greater than this, I'd love to read it.
If you want to see this for yourself, be it either because you don't believe or an honest intellectual curiousity, find a forum (StackOverflow isn't actually the best since it's not really a "forum") and express skepticism about the utility of map and filter and suggest that a for loop works just as well. Be polite, but be firm and don't back down.
You will be called names. You will be insulted and told that you just don't understand functional programming, probably because you're dumb.
I know this, because I had to deliberately cultivate a writing style that learned how to avoid this (which is why I start out waving around the fact that I don't just know a bit of Haskell, but actually know Haskell; I would not normally make a deal out of that, for instance). I wouldn't have had to deliberately learn how to write around this if it doesn't exist.
Now, the tradeoff I get is people who don't believe such advocacy exists, because it is no longer appearing in the replies to my posts like it used to. A worthy tradeoff even so, I think.
Thanks to closures, map/reduce function callbacks in Javascript are extremely handy.
Please link me to something like a stackoverflow answer with "vigor" greater than this, I'd love to read it.