Question

There seems to be a lot of heated discussion on the net about the changes to the reduce() function in python 3.0 and how it should be removed. I am having a little difficulty understanding why this is the case; I find it quite reasonable to use it in a variety of cases. If the contempt was simply subjective, I cannot imagine that such a large number of people would care about it.

What am I missing? What is the problem with reduce()?

Answer 1

As Guido says in his The fate of reduce() in Python 3000 post:

So now reduce(). This is actually the one I’ve always hated most, because, apart from a few examples involving + or *, almost every time I see a reduce() call with a non-trivial function argument, I need to grab pen and paper to diagram what’s actually being fed into that function before I understand what the reduce() is supposed to do. So in my mind, the applicability of reduce() is pretty much limited to associative operators, and in all other cases it’s better to write out the accumulation loop explicitly.

There is an excellent example of a confusing reduce in the Functional Programming HOWTO article:

Quick, what’s the following code doing?

total = reduce(lambda a, b: (0, a[1] + b[1]), items)[1] 

You can figure it out, but it takes time to disentangle the expression to figure out what’s going on. Using a short nested def statements makes things a little bit better:

def combine (a, b):     return 0, a[1] + b[1]  total = reduce(combine, items)[1] 

But it would be best of all if I had simply used a for loop:

total = 0 for a, b in items:     total += b 

Or the sum() built-in and a generator expression:

total = sum(b for a,b in items) 

Many uses of reduce() are clearer when written as for loops.