Question

I recently started reading through Paul Graham’s On Lisp with a friend, and we realized that we have very different opinions of reduce: I think it expresses a certain kind of recursive form very clearly and concisely; he prefers to write out the recursion very explicitly.

I suspect we’re each right in some context and wrong in another, but we don’t know where the line is. When do you choose one form over the other, and what do you think about when making that choice?

To be clear about what I mean by reduce vs. explicit recursion, here’s the same function implemented twice:

(defun my-remove-if (pred lst)
    (fold (lambda (left right)
                  (if (funcall pred left) 
                      right 
                      (cons left right)))
          lst :from-end t))

(defun my-remove-if (pred lst)
    (if lst
        (if (funcall pred (car lst))
            (my-remove-if pred (cdr lst))
            (cons (car lst) (my-remove-if pred (cdr lst))))
        '()))

I’m afraid I started out a Schemer (now we’re Racketeers?) so please let me know if I’ve botched the Common Lisp syntax. Hopefully the point will be clear even if the code is incorrect.

Answer 1

If you have a choice, you should always express your computational intent in the most abstract terms possible. This makes it easier for a reader to figure out your intentions, and it makes it easier for the compiler to optimize your code. In your example, when the compiler trivially knows you are doing a fold operation by virtue of you naming it, it also trivially knows that it could possibly parallelize the leaf operations. It would be much harder for a compiler to figure that out when you write extremely low level operations.