map/filter/reduce/lambda opinions and background unscientific mini-survey

[Ron Adam]

Erik Max Francis wrote:

> Ron Adam wrote:
> 
>> Each item needs to stand on it's own.  It's a much stronger argument 
>> for removing something because something else fulfills it's need and 
>> is easier or faster to use than just saying we need x because we have y.
>>
>> In this case sum and product fulfill 90% (estimate of course) of 
>> reduces use cases.  It may actually be as high as 99% for all I know. 
>> Or it may be less.  Anyone care to try and put a real measurement on it?
> 
> 
> Well, reduce covers 100% of them, and it's one function, and it's 
> already there.

So you are saying that anything that has a 1% use case should be 
included as a builtin function?

I think I can find a few hundred other functions in the library that are 
used more than ten times as often as reduce.  Should those be builtins too?

This is a practical over purity issue, so what are the practical reasons 
for keeping it.  "It's already there" isn't a practical reason.  And it 
covers 100% of it's own potential use cases, is circular logic without a 
real underlying basis.

Cheers,
Ron