[mkprc]

Prior to this article, I didn't think of currying as being something a person could be "for" or "against." It just is. The fact that a function of multiple inputs can be equivalently thought of as a function of a tuple can be equivalently thought of as a composite of single-input functions that return functions is about cognition, and understanding structure, not code syntax.

[kevincox]

But it is about code syntax. Languages like Haskell make it part of the language by only supporting single-argument functions. So currying is the default behaviour for programmers.

I think you are focusing on the theoretical aspect of partial application and missing the actual argument of the article which having it be the default, implicit way of defining and calling functions isn't a good programming interface.

[bbkane]

Similar to how lambda calculus "just is" (and it's very elegant and useful for math proofs), but nobody writes non-trivial programs in it...

[tromp]

Make that almost nobody.

I wrote a non-trivial lambda program [1] which enumerates proofs in the Calculus of Constructions to demonstrate [2] that BBλ(1850) > Loader's Number.

[1] https://github.com/tromp/AIT/blob/master/fast_growing_and_co...

[2] https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/176966/golf-a-n...

[ajkjk]

You can be for or against anything. This is a lot like having an opinion about, say, Oxford commas in a style guide, or the format of a tax form. Which is to say: not likely to do anything in the short term, until the day that someone is designing a new language / set of forms, in which case promoting the stance ahead of time might affect their decision-making.

[AnimalMuppet]

I'm a programmer, not a computer scientist. The equivalence is a computer science thing. They are logically equivalent in theoretical computer science. Fine.

They are not equally easy for me to use when I'm writing a program. So from a software engineering perspective, they are very much not the same.