Learning Clojure: comparing with Java streams
blog.frankel.ch
Learning Clojure: comparing with Java streams
1–10 of 46 posts
Re: Learning Clojure: comparing with Java streams
#2It seems strange to me that
`(map extract-name justice-league)`
isn't listed under "idiomatic improvements." Supposing you already had `extract-name` defined for some reason, it's cleaner and simpler to just map that unary function than wrap that function in an anonymous function - whether that wrapping is done with the `#(...)` reader syntax or explicitly constructed with `fn`.
Re: Learning Clojure: comparing with Java streams
#3It seems strange to me that `(map extract-name justice-league)` isn't listed under "idiomatic improvements." Supposing you already had `extract-name` defined for some reason, it's cleaner and simpler to just map that unary function than wrap that function in an anonymous function - whether that wrapping is done with the `#(...)` reader syntax or explicitly constructed with `fn`.
Oh that's a pet peeve of mine. Fun fact: it's called an eta expansion/reduction/conversion.
Re: Learning Clojure: comparing with Java streams
#4> and Clojure’s syntax is pretty limited
Erm, what? I am confused by the use of the word 'limited' in this context.
Re: Learning Clojure: comparing with Java streams
#5It seems strange to me that `(map extract-name justice-league)` isn't listed under "idiomatic improvements." Supposing you already had `extract-name` defined for some reason, it's cleaner and simpler to just map that unary function than wrap that function in an anonymous function - whether that wrapping is done with the `#(...)` reader syntax or explicitly constructed with `fn`.
It certainly looks like a deliberate move to introduce anonymous functions and thus justify replacing the named function.
Re: Learning Clojure: comparing with Java streams
#6It seems strange to me that `(map extract-name justice-league)` isn't listed under "idiomatic improvements." Supposing you already had `extract-name` defined for some reason, it's cleaner and simpler to just map that unary function than wrap that function in an anonymous function - whether that wrapping is done with the `#(...)` reader syntax or explicitly constructed with `fn`.
Or indeed `(map :name foo)` instead of the suggested (and redundant, linenoisy) `(map #(:name %) foo)`.
Re: Learning Clojure: comparing with Java streams
#7The equivalent of `flatMap` is not `flatten`. Semantically `flatMap` is equivalent to `(comp flatten map)` – hence the name! – but Clojure does offer it as a single function named `mapcat` (”map and catenate”).
Re: Learning Clojure: comparing with Java streams
#8> and Clojure’s syntax is pretty limited Erm, what? I am confused by the use of the word 'limited' in this context.
lisps can be thought of languages that avoid syntax.
the code you write is more like a high level AST.
Re: Learning Clojure: comparing with Java streams
#9> and Clojure’s syntax is pretty limited Erm, what? I am confused by the use of the word 'limited' in this context.
I confirm: the syntax is limited. There are only a few keywords and langage constructs. The power is in the number of functions made available, or the ones you create for yourself.
Re: Learning Clojure: comparing with Java streams
#10Also, this bit:
(->> justice-league
(map #(:vehicles %))
(filter #(not (nil? %)))
(flatten))