Hello Katrina.

I must say: Thank you for your engagement!

But, you seem upset. I respect that we have entirely different views on JS development. It's fine to disagree.

You are making lots of assumptions and even more generalizations ("there's not a soul in the world..." etc). And you too make "misguided value jugements" (I didn't include "completely" as you did). It's a bit hard to take this response fully seriously.

But a few comments:

It is not new and shiny to me. I have used it for 5 years.

If one is familiar to the destructuring syntax it is not at all as horrible as you describe it ("visual clusterfuck", "syntactic mud puddles", "syntactic ball of goop", "gigantic mess" etc).

I "cluttered the function", but it became shorter ;). (I'm only partly serious here, hence the smiley).

For me, one of the points of structuring a function like this (HOF) IS lazy evaluation. That is why "data" is last in this example. So yes, this is how a thunk looks. I agree however that "currying" is strictly the transformation of a function into the possibility of partial application. I'm sorry for this misstake, thank you for pointing that out.

No, it is not because of destructuring that we need a default when we nest it a level. We need that for the same reason that we would or would not need "?.".

To clarify my view...

Consider that you in some function need:

`profile.user.address.street.number` & `profile.user.address.city`

Without destructuring you'd have to type:

`profile?.user?.address?.street?.number ?? ""` & `profile?.user?.address?.city ?? ""`

Yes. If this is highly dynamic data.

With destructuring, made as early as possible in a suitable way for the situation, you know that you have safe short values to work with, easily usable multiple times in the scope:

`streetNumber` & `city`

---

A couple of thoughts about how we might differ that lead us to such different perspectives: Perhaps you have handled more static data than I have, and perhaps you write longer functions than I do (I limit that with ESLint). Perhaps you write more TS and less functional style than me. We don't know.

Best of the best regards

Esbjörn