That doesn’t change much for my read ability. It even reads more imperatively, like: I take a range of 0 to 10, map it over x * 2, map it over… What do I get? A mapping? Maybe?
Meanwhile, a for loop is straightforward, you go from 0 to 10 and append a double or add a triple of x to an accumulator. I appended/added them, that’s what I get. It’s like my brain somehow follows {} scopes and understands their local envs with no effort.
If this syntactic style works for you without this friction, nice. But it doesn’t work for everyone and I suspect that this FP/PP is biased by this effect at both sides.
A mapped list/enumerable it was originally given. You don't think what you get when you add two numbers, don't you? Language just works certain way. Not understanding a simple building block of a language isn't a valid argument against it. All you essentially say is that you got so used to OOP concepts that anything else is hard to read. And it's ok, it's the same way for everyone... But it's not a valid argument to say that "fUnCtIoNAL bAd". The whole thing here boils down to what you already said - lack of experience.
My honest advice is - try to learn one functional language, like honestly learn and understand it, try writing something with it. It really does expand horizons.
Meanwhile, a for loop is straightforward, you go from 0 to 10 and append a double or add a triple of x to an accumulator. I appended/added them, that’s what I get. It’s like my brain somehow follows {} scopes and understands their local envs with no effort.
If this syntactic style works for you without this friction, nice. But it doesn’t work for everyone and I suspect that this FP/PP is biased by this effect at both sides.