Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Nick Sabalausky]

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message 
news:mailman.275.1331250663.4860.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:54:21PM +0100, deadalnix wrote:
>> Le 08/03/2012 07:15, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
>> >On Thursday, March 08, 2012 00:52:57 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> >>"Ary Manzana"<ary at esperanto.org.ar>  wrote in message
>> >>news:jj94mb$1i7v$1 at digitalmars.com...
> [...]
>> >>parent_ids =
>> >>     results
>> >>     .map{|x| x['_source']['parent_ids']}
>> >>     .flatten.uniq
>> >>     .compactHash[
>> >>         Site.find(parent_ids).map{|x| [x.id, x]}
>> >>     ]
>> >
>> >I actually tend to find code like that hard to read, because all of
>> >the operations are inside out in comparison to normal. But since the
>> >only difference between his example and yours is the formatting, I
>> >agree yours is easier to read. Still, I'd much prefer if such code
>> >didn't use UFCS, since I find it much harder to read that way. It's
>> >just so backwards.
>> >
>> >- Jonathan M Davis
>>
>> You got tricked by your experience. You are used to read backward.
>> The function are written in the order they are executed in the example
>> above. This isn't very traditional, and may be the reverse order of
>> what people expect due to previous experience, but definitively is the
>> forward way.
>
> Yeah, modern function composition syntax is totally backwards. This is
> most obvious when you use the f?g notation in math. It means f(g), that
> is, apply g first, then f. So if you use this notation in functional
> programming, writing something like a?b?c?d?e?f means run steps a..f
> *backwards*. Written on multiple lines, it totally goes against the flow
> of control.

That's why I'll always use std.functional.pipe instead of 
std.functional.compose. (Though if my math background was stronger than my 
programming backgroud, I'd probably prefer std.functional.compose)

>It's the programming language version of top-posting. ;-)
>

Forth using like just It's.

> Unfortunately, the alternative is reverse Polish notation, which isn't
> all that readable either.
>

My Calculus class in high-school uses a graphing calculator that used 
reverse polish notation. I had less trouble with it than some of the 
students because of my programming background and prior understanding of 
stacks. But boy did it still seem goofy. I like the TI's so much better.

> Chained object notation is a good compromise, which happens quite often
> when you use jQuery:
>
> $(selector)
> .html(htmlcode)
> .add(more_nodes)
> .css(some_styles)
> .filter(unwanted_nodes)
> .click(click_handler)
> .show();
>
> Writing this in function composition order would cause an instant
> quantum leap in unreadability.
>

Ziggy says there's an 80% chance you're here to decrease excess parenthesis 
nesting and set straight what once went backwards.