Is pipelining the right term here? I've always used the term "transducer" to describe this kind of process, I picked it up from an episode of FunFunFunction if I'm not mistaken.
There's like 5 terms for this in different programming languages. I think 'pipelining' is the best universal word. 'Method chaining' just isn't correct, nor is 'builder pattern', and 'transducer' or 'thrush combinator' is obviously a nonstarter for most people.
It is important for the functional guys, and I recognize the importance it has for them.
These "pipelines" and "object streaming" APIs are often built upon OOP. I feel that calling it "transducers" would offend the sensibilities of those who think it must be functional all the way down.
Don't you think it's better to keep it with a different name? I mean, even among the functional community itself there seems to be a lot of stress around purity, why would anyone want to make it worse?
I may have just misunderstood the OP. It sounded to me like describing the benefits specifically of transducers, but if it was OOP and more just about piping operators or chaining the term wouldn't fit.
Yep not sure how I totally misread it here. Looking back they're describing currying.
I've used languages and libraries that call it piping, ramda has a .pipe() method for example. Don't think I've ever seen it called pipelining but I see how you could get there.
