> It doesn't help that these operations have very generic names
As if "for" and "while" aren't generic names. They're so interchangeable that ziglang has basically replaced C's "for" with "while".
And with imperative loops, you have to reconstruct in your mind the state of what you're looping over and remember all possible variables closed over the loop and how they could be in flight during the loop. Map is basically declarative: "this thing is going to happen to each thing in your list"; Reduce is like a for loop, except you explicitly declare what you have to keep track over through the loop.
Eh. It reminds my of writing vectorized mathematical code in numpy or matlab. Oh it's so much cleaner because you don't have an ugly loop! If all you have is a basic dot product, sure. But a lot of times, a loop is a hell of a lot easier to understand, even if it is slower.
Almost universally, I find the map/reduce/filter idioms to be inscrutable, write-only code compared to a good old loop
Tell me you can write that as an "easier to understand" set of loops. Tell me that this code is "write-only" and that you don't immediately understand what is happening, without even knowing the language it's in.
The pipe operator really is elixirs secret sauce. The whole OTP platform amazing but web servers can live without it. But the developer ergonomics of the pipe operator for code that is to a large extent
for and while aren't generic in the context of collections. It's very obvious what
for item in itemsList:
doSomething(item)
means. In any case I think map etc. are perfectly ok but it gets tricky when you talk about Options, Futures, Either etc. since I would argue most people don't immediately see how "looping" (I know it's not really looping) can apply here.
As if "for" and "while" aren't generic names. They're so interchangeable that ziglang has basically replaced C's "for" with "while".
And with imperative loops, you have to reconstruct in your mind the state of what you're looping over and remember all possible variables closed over the loop and how they could be in flight during the loop. Map is basically declarative: "this thing is going to happen to each thing in your list"; Reduce is like a for loop, except you explicitly declare what you have to keep track over through the loop.
The advantages should be clear.