I Think Ramda Might Be Better Than Lodash or Underscore

Ramda is very like underscore and lodash, but there are some cool differences.

Remember this chaining example?

    .filter((x) => x % 2 > 0)
    .map((x) => x % 5 === 0 ? 2*x : x)

Here's another way to do it:

    R.map((x) => x % 5 === 0 ? 2*x : x),
    R.filter((x) => x % 2 > 0))
        (R.range(1, 21))

Here, R is the Ramda library.

So what does compose do? If f, g, and h are functions, R.compose(f, g, h) returns a function equivalent to f(g(h())).

In our case f is R.sum. g is a curried map (meaning that only the first argument of R.map is given to it so we still need to provide it an array to map over). And h is a similarly curried filter. Finally, on the last line above we call the function that compose returns, giving it the same range as before as a parameter.

One of the big advantages I see with compose vs chaining is that now we're no longer limited to just the functions defined in the library. I can put any function I want in compose, even ones I define.

Plus, as we've already seen with R.map and R.filter, all Ramda functions are curried, which (I'm finding) really hooks up well with function composition.

Here's something else that's pretty cool. If I define a function using R.curry:

var add3 = R.curry((a, b, c) => a + b + c)  

All of the following are equivalent:

add3(1, 2, 3)  
add3(1)(2, 3)  
add3(1, 2)(3)  

Also, you can do this:

var add_to_5 = add3(1, R.__, 4)  

This prints 7.

Actually, wait... lodash can do this too. :)

Ok, but that's still pretty cool. curry is a much better function than partial in my opinion.

Ramda's auto-currying plus compose is pretty rad. I think I'm probably gonna switch.

Looking for a software developer?