Reducing reduce

[Brian Goetz]

See earlier posting on "reducing reduce."  Two reasons:

  - People find it confusing -- they want to know why they have to 
specify two functions that "do the same thing."  (Because they are 
thinking sequentially.)  And that confusion then infects all the reduce 
forms.

  - The cases where it has an advantage over either map+reduce or 
collect seem to be somewhat limited.  And, due to lots of accidental 
complexity reasons, often involve a fair amount of object creation 
overhead, which starts to eat into the potential performance advantage.

So through the combination of "few people will use it, but it confuses 
everyone", it seems a reasonable candidate for pruning.


On 2/18/2013 6:34 PM, Joe Bowbeer wrote:
> Maybe I'm confused.
>
> Why are you now trying to eliminate it?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com
> <mailto:brian.goetz at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>         2. Why don't we have a parallel fold (map+combine) like Rich Hickey
>         added to Clojure?
>
>         http://clojure.com/blog/2012/__05/08/reducers-a-library-and-__model-for-collection-__processing.html
>         <http://clojure.com/blog/2012/05/08/reducers-a-library-and-model-for-collection-processing.html>
>
>
>     I'm confused -- the 3-arg reduce was directly inspired by Rich's
>     Reducers work?
>
>