9 ms·

I'm more partial to the first one because it keeps a linear flow downwards, and a uniform structure. The second one kind of drifts off, and reshuffling parts of

I'm more partial to the first one because it keeps a linear flow downwards, and a uniform structure. The second one kind of drifts off, and reshuffling parts of it is going to be … annoying. IME the dot style lends itself much better to restructuring. Depending on language you might also have some `.flat_map` option available to drop the `.reduce`.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
itsmeknt 2y ago
True! Good point on the restructuring, I haven't thought about it in that way. I think I like the second approach because the loop behavior seems clearest, which helps me analyze the time complexity or when I want to skim the code quickly. A syntax like something below would be perfect for me if it existed: var favoriteFoodsOfFurryPetsOfFamousAuthorsOfLongChineseBooksAboutHistory = books[i].author.pets[j].favoriteFood.distinct() where i = pagecount > 100, language == "Chinese", subject == "History", author.mentions > 10_000 where j = is_furry == True
- syklemil 2y ago
  You would likely approach it in any style with some helper functions once whatever's in the parentheses or ifs starts feeling big. E.g. in the dot style you could fn bookFilter(book: Book) -> bool { return book.pageCount > 100 and book.language == "Chinese" and book.subject == "History" and book.author.mentions > 10_000 } var favoriteFoodsOfFurryPetsOfFamousAuthorsOfLongChineseBooksAboutHistory = books .filter(bookFilter) .flatMap(book => book.author.pets) .filter(pet => pet.is_furry) .map(pet => pet.favoriteFood) .distinct()
- dahauns 2y ago
  Hm, LINQ query syntax form is kinda going in that direction (from book in books where book.pagecount > 100 && book.language == "Chinese" && book.subject == "History" && book.author.mentions > 10_000 from pet in book.author.pets where pet.is_furry == true select pet.favoriteFood) .Distinct() But it also demonstrates the...erm, chronic "halfassedness" of LINQ's query syntax form with distinct() not available there and having to fall back to method syntax form anyway...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

itsmeknt 2y ago

True! Good point on the restructuring, I haven't thought about it in that way. I think I like the second approach because the loop behavior seems clearest, which helps me analyze the time complexity or when I want to skim the code quickly. A syntax like something below would be perfect for me if it existed: var favoriteFoodsOfFurryPetsOfFamousAuthorsOfLongChineseBooksAboutHistory = books[i].author.pets[j].favoriteFood.distinct() where i = pagecount > 100, language == "Chinese", subject == "History", author.mentions > 10_000 where j = is_furry == True

syklemil 2y ago
You would likely approach it in any style with some helper functions once whatever's in the parentheses or ifs starts feeling big. E.g. in the dot style you could fn bookFilter(book: Book) -> bool { return book.pageCount > 100 and book.language == "Chinese" and book.subject == "History" and book.author.mentions > 10_000 } var favoriteFoodsOfFurryPetsOfFamousAuthorsOfLongChineseBooksAboutHistory = books .filter(bookFilter) .flatMap(book => book.author.pets) .filter(pet => pet.is_furry) .map(pet => pet.favoriteFood) .distinct()
dahauns 2y ago
Hm, LINQ query syntax form is kinda going in that direction (from book in books where book.pagecount > 100 && book.language == "Chinese" && book.subject == "History" && book.author.mentions > 10_000 from pet in book.author.pets where pet.is_furry == true select pet.favoriteFood) .Distinct() But it also demonstrates the...erm, chronic "halfassedness" of LINQ's query syntax form with distinct() not available there and having to fall back to method syntax form anyway...