David Fox reacts to my criticism of his attitude towards "the meaning of folds":
I'm not trying to avoid learning the differences between the different folds, but I am looking for a mnemonic device that will allow me to proceed more quickly towards my goal. My ultimate goal is to write software, not to understand folds. Just as it is inappropriate for a young officer to even contemplate an overall strategy for winning the war, it would be inappropriate for a general to spend more time than necessary on the minute details of military tactics, as vital as they are. David, cynism or not, you might have found in my post some concrete remarks, about incrementality, about tail-recursion... Not a single comment of your part. No comment addressed to other people who tried also to help you (whether we really help you in such a way is subject to discussion...)
I am sorry, but saying that your goal is to write software is not even funny. The relatively modern science of programming evolves for the last 60 years, and the progress in writing software NEVER came out of kitchen recipes, on the contrary ! The laziness is not a "trick to avoid computation", but a methodology of ordering the operations, and if you are unable to order them in your head, you won't be able to exploit this or that "design pattern". OK, you gather some patterns, and you apply them. Once. And then, you will be helpless, when the need for refactoring arrives. You will never be able to teach those patterns to your younger colleagues. And finally, your last remarks might be less relevant than you wish. A general gets his stars usually after several years of demonstrating that he UNDERSTANDS the minute details of military tactics, so he can consciously choose those who will implement them. Jerzy Karczmarczuk