[MathMonkeyMan]

Neat, but I think that functions already do what we need.

For one thing, the example isn't the most compelling, because you can:

    const greeting = 'hello'.toUpperCase() + '!!!';

or

    const greeting = 'HELLO!!!';

That said, there is already:

    function thrush(initial, ...funcs) {
        return funcs.reduce(
            (current, func) => func(current),
            initial);
    }

    const greeting = thrush('hello', s => s.toUpperCase(), s => s + '!!!');

[nonethewiser]

Are any of the cases compelling? Thinking of the actual proposal. It creates some new magic with |> and % just for syntactic sugar.

[accrual]

I am all for clean syntax but I feel like JS has already reached a nice middle ground between expressiveness (especially w/ map/reduce/filter) and readability. I'd personally rather not have another syntax that everyone will have to learn unless we're already moving to a new language.

[IshKebab]

I think JS's map/reduce/filter design is one of the worst ones out there actually - map has footguns with its extra arguments and everything gets converted to an array at the drop of a hat. Still, pipeline syntax probably won't help fix any of that.

[thdhhghgbhy]

I always thought JS map filter reduce felt quite nice, especially playing around with data in the REPL. Java maps with all the conversions back and forth to streams are clumsy.

[Timwi]

Well in JS you have to convert to arrays instead. You can't do `document.querySelectorAll(...).map(...)`.

[thdhhghgbhy]

That's the DOM API, it's not part of the language! They had reasons for querySelectorAll not returning an array.

[eyelidlessness]

> everything gets converted to an array at the drop of a hat

Can you name an example? IME the opposite is a more common complaint: needing to explicitly convert values to arrays from many common APIs which return eg iterables/iterators.

[IshKebab]

`map` returns an array and can only be called on an array.

[eyelidlessness]

Right, but I’m not clear on what gets converted to an array. Do you mean more or less what I said in my previous comment? That it requires you (your code, or calling code in general) to perform that conversion excessively?

[nonethewiser]

I agree but to steelman it, what about custom functions? I think just doing it naively is perfectly fine. Or if you want use some pipe utility. Or wrap the array, string, etc. with your own custom methods.

[rco8786]

Whatever that thrush thing is feels 10x more gross than the pipe

[flexagoon]

Not if you consider that the linked repo requires you to use asPipe on all functions first. So it's this:

  const greeting = thrush(
    'hello',
    s => s.toUpperCase(),
    s => s + '!!!'
  );

Vs this:

  const upper = asPipe(s => s.toUpperCase())
  const ex = asPipe((s) => s + '!!!')
  const greeting = pipe('hello')
    | upper
    | ex
  await greeting.run()

(And that doesn't work in reality, as the top comment here notes)

[svieira]

Thrush is the "T combinator" - I believe that the "Thrush" name comes from To Mock a Mockingbird by Raymond Smullyan [1].

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Mock-Mockingbird-Other-Logic-Puzzles/...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatory_logic#In_computing

[3]: https://leanpub.com/combinators/read#leanpub-auto-the-thrush