Do you think if pipeline programming is good to pu...

# codereview

[Edgar Avuzi]

Do you think if pipeline programming is good to put everywhere like this?
I'm just so obsessed with it. It makes the code so clear, simple and straightforward. IMO. Like this: do steps one, two, three. And that's it.
But one can say that the 3 usages of .let are redundant here (because there is no null to handle using ?.let ). Still this disadvantage does not outweight. IMO

[okarm]

You can even do .let(::File) and .let(::println)

[Edgar Avuzi]

agree, looks cleaner

[Arjan van Wieringen]

It’s a matter of personal taste. I don’t like this because it is harder to place breakpoints when debugging. On the other hand, you don’t have to come up with intermediate names .

It depends a bit on the context. There’s a place and a time for it, as is with all these things ;)

[CLOVIS]

I think it's more readable as long as it's only simple function calls. .let(::File) is fine to me, but it starts getting smelly as soon as a .let is inside another .let . To me that's a sign that the outer one should be a regular function call, not chained.

[Klitos Kyriacou]

On a related note, I find it slightly unstylish that the final .let is not in the same column position as the previous `.let`s, due to the braces.

[Klitos Kyriacou]

By the way, in general it's inadvisable to turn a URI into a File. If the URI points to an entry in a jar file, then it's not a File and you'll get an exception if you try to read from it like that. You can instead read it directly using getResourceAsStream() and turning it into a Reader. You should then ensure it gets closed after reading, by using the use function. Also, there are some ways to simplify the code, for example using sumOf. So your initial code can be written like this:

({}.javaClass.classLoader.getResourceAsStream("input3.txt") ?: return)
    .reader()
    .use { it.readText() }
    .let { regex.findAll(it) }
    .map { it.destructured }
    .sumOf { (a, b) -> a.toInt() * b.toInt() }
    .let { println(it) }

[Edgar Avuzi]

Thank you @Klitos Kyriacou
Your approach is super elegant
I didn't even thought of denesting my code like this