I think animating the transformation from a normal loop to a list comprehension is a great way to show how the syntax translates between the two forms. Very awesome and comprehensive post.
Maybe I'm an FP snob but it would have been nice to mention the analogy to set builder notation (though lists aren't sets - maybe multisets or bags) to indicate the existence of higher abstraction; not just syntactic sugar on the for-loop.
However, from a practical point of view I think it is great introduction for procedural programmers to begin using list comprehensions.
> though lists aren't sets - maybe multisets or bags
arrays/lists (like maps/hashes, though with a more narrow restriction on the indices) are (or at least are isomorphic to) sets of pairs of (index, element).
They carry information about order which does not exist in multisets/bags.
However, from a practical point of view I think it is great introduction for procedural programmers to begin using list comprehensions.