[badsectoracula]

Eh, no, i'm not exaggerating. I really have a hard time following the flow of the posted code. I can get a rough idea of what it is doing by ignoring most of the Modern C++-isms, but i still can't tell you with confidence that i know exactly what is going to happen (...and i'm not asking for an explanation, btw, that is besides the point :-P).

I mean, sure, if i take that code and run it through a debugger - perhaps while also crossreferencing the features it uses at cppreference.com - then i'd be able to follow it. However at that point any relevance to readability would have been thrown out of the window long ago.

[klibertp]

Well, readability is like this. It's not a property of the code alone, it's an emergent property based on both the code and your knowledge as a reader. It's very, very subjective, which our little disagreement here proves. Basically, the same code using the same feature can be both insurmountable wall of text and an elegant, readable solution - depending on your background, current knowledge, and personal taste (among other factors).

For me, this whole spread/fold feature is easy to grok, because I've worked with many similar features elsewhere. In this case, the feature looks almost identical to how `...` is handled in one of the Scheme macro systems, syntax-case (and syntax-rules, by extension)[1]. As mentioned, the use of spread on a comma operator with a side-effect is tricky and maybe too clever, but, otherwise, I don't see anything out of ordinary.

> perhaps while also crossreferencing the features it uses at cppreference.com

That's the thing - if you already knew the meaning and syntax of these features by heart, you'd find the code using them very readable. You also wouldn't need to step through it in the debugger, because there's really not much happening there in terms of control flow.

In general, "readability" is simply a bad word to use: it's too overloaded and means too many things to too many (kinds of) people. Every language can become readable to you if you put enough effort into it; and no, the amount of effort needed is also dependent more on your prior knowledge than on the language in question. So it's just too subjective to be useful as a metric for anything, unfortunately.

[1] https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/stx-patterns.html#%28...

[badsectoracula]

It isn't just about knowledge, but also about how much knowledge you'd need to keep in your head just to read something - the least the code requires from you before you even start reading the code, the more you can focus on understanding the code itself. And even when you know about the features shown, it still is hard to follow the flow. I mean, i do know about lambdas in C++ and have used them a lot, but i can still find it harder to follow code that uses them extensively with the flow jumping around as, e.g., calls to other functions call back to local lambdas.

[klibertp]

> but also about how much knowledge you'd need to keep in your head just to read something

Yeah, but the effect of this is greatly overstated most of the time. As I said, given enough effort, you can learn - and learn to keep in your head - anything. It matters in the short term, while you're learning, but in the long run, once you've learned and internalized all the required information, it stops being relevant.

It's probably harder to learn to read and write kanji instead of the Latin alphabet. For most people, that difference matters for a few years in their childhood, but once they have the characters drilled into them, it no longer matters: they can read and write as well as any Westerner.

The same is true for (natural) languages: some are inherently more complex and hard to learn than others, yet once you become fluent, you stop noticing the complexity. You simply speak, read, and write your thoughts directly, without thinking about grammar and spelling too much.

It's also visible in sciences and engineering. Mathematical notation is especially notorious: not only every symbol can have multiple meanings, but you're expected to also guess which meaning was intended from other symbols and text around. That's on top of introducing hundreds of made-up words for equally made-up concepts, like a "number", or "monoid in the category of endofunctors".

Finally, it manifests in programming and programming languages. In various ways. For example, there are some people who use APL, K, or J - because it's "easier to read and keep in your head a single line of APL than a 500 loc of equivalent C". If given a chance, they will tell you that something like this is of course very readable and straightforward:

    ⍝ John Conway's "Game of Life".
    life←{↑1 ⍵∨.∧3 4=+/,¯1 0 1∘.⊖¯1 0 1∘.⌽⊂⍵}

You just need to learn a few things first, and that may be hard, but once you do - I'm told - reading and writing code this way becomes effortless, and a thousand times more efficient than writing in C.

Basically, if you're going to be switching languages every year, then yes, there's a difference between having to learn the language for a month rather than six before you can ship something. On the other hand, if you're going to stick with a language for a decade or two, then the long learning process becomes irrelevant, as it's dwarfed by the rest of the time where you actually use the language.

> it still is hard to follow the flow

It may be hard if you're not familiar with the common patterns of using higher-order functions. HOF and lambdas are not GOTO: there's a structure there, it's just richer than the basic set of if/for/while statements. You could call such a structure an FP equivalent of OOP design patterns.

> calls to other functions call back to local lambdas

Yeah, but that's also true for every abstraction, starting with a procedure definition. Also, you don't need lambdas to have this problem, it's enough to register procedure as a signal handler, or register an event handler in some async framework. When you pass a comparator function to `qsort`, you similarly don't know when and how that function will be called, even though it's a named procedure.

To summarize: no matter the language, you can learn it, you can fit all of it in your head, and you can make it readable for you. It requires effort, which is an investment: it might not be worth your while, depending on your circumstances. However, if you encounter a code you don't understand or have trouble with reading, because you didn't invest enough time into learning the language, that's not the code's (or features') fault. Just be honest with yourself and don't blame others for what is a result of your conscious decision.

Also of note: yes, the features often do differ in their complexity, and the differences influence the readability (for lack of a better word). However, to see this and to be able to compare, you have to first learn the features in-depth.