map/filter/reduce/lambda opinions and background unscientific mini-survey

[Peter Hansen]

mcherm at gmail.com wrote:
[snip description of experience teaching high school students]
> So I'd say that it's a pretty obscure name that most people wouldn't
> know.

It would be hard to argue against that statement; certainly "lambda" in 
this context (or probably any) is not a word "most people" would know.

On the other hand, the name itself is probably not very important.  I 
still remember my first encounter with "lambda" in Python very clearly.

I saw the word, thought "huh? what the heck is that?", then read a 
sentence about it that included some comment about its background in 
other fields.

"Oh," I said, "pre-existing usage.  Whatever."  I proceeded to read 
about what it did and how to use it.

The name was irrelevant.  If the text had said "anonymous functions are 
created using the keyword 'tribble' (named for a similar feature in a 
fictional Klingon programming language)", I wouldn't have felt any 
differently about it.  So it makes some sense to a few trekkers... big 
furry deal.

What bothered me was the syntax.  Arguments without parentheses?  What 
possessed anyone to put something so inconsistent in the language?  No 
statements?  Dang, that will limit my interest in using them.  Oh well, 
what's page four of the tutorial got for me next?  It shouldn't take 
anyone more than ten seconds to integrate "lambda" into their brain and 
carry on with useful work.

Really, the name is such a trivial, unimportant part of this whole thing 
that it's hardly worth discussing.  The syntax is more important, and 
the limitations are of definite interest.  Not the name.

-Peter