[notemaker]

I've never found this style readable unless with pipes (bash / elixir), where I love it. With any other syntax, I find it just adds mental overhead. Maybe because you have to read it backwards?

[technojamin]

Pipes in both of the languages you specified do function application, not composition, so they’re very much point-ful (you see the arguments you pass/get passed).

[euiq]

I assume they're talking about code like

    x
    |> f a
    |> g b
    …

… where everything after the first |> is essentially in point-free style.

[diggan]

Clojure (and I'm sure other lisps and programming languages) have a nice solution to this, the `->` macro ("threading")

You'd do something like:

  (save (transform (fetch))) ;; calls fetch, then transform, then save

  (-> (fetch)
      (transform)
      (save))

Not that the non-threading version was hard to read, but once the function names start to be a bit longer and involve arguments, the threading version tends to be a lot easier to read.