# Why `compose()`

is right-to-left

Published on in JavaScript

Functions composed together with `compose()`

are called from right to left.
It feels unintuitive at first,
but it's conventional
and kind of makes sense.

## Table of contents

## What's `compose()`

?

I was recently reading the book
*Professor Frisby's Mostly Adequate Guide to Functional Programming [in JavaScript]*.^{[1]}
(It's a good book,
but became too much for me somewhere around chapter 8 or 9.
)

Chapter 5, *Coding by Composing*,
introduces a `compose()`

function for composing functions together:

```
const compose = (...fns) => (...args) =>
fns.reduceRight((res, fn) => [fn.call(null, ...res)], args)[0]
```

(There's also Ramda's `R.compose`

,
and Lodash's `_.flowRight`

which is aliased to `_.compose`

in
`lodash/fp`

.)

Example usage from the book:

```
const toUpperCase = (x) => x.toUpperCase()
const exclaim = (x) => `${x}!`
const shout = compose(exclaim, toUpperCase)
shout('send in the clowns') // "SEND IN THE CLOWNS!"
```

`shout`

is a function composed of the `exclaim`

and `toUpperCase`

functions:
it first calls `toUpperCase`

and then `exclaim`

.

Calling `shout`

is the same as calling the two functions "manually"
(without using `compose`

):

```
exclaim(toUpperCase('send in the clowns')) // "SEND IN THE CLOWNS!"
```

The order of the two functions doesn't matter in this case because the end result is the same with either order.

Another example (a bit contrived) from the book; here the order does matter:

```
const head = (x) => x[0]
const reverse = reduce((acc, x) => [x, ...acc], [])
const last = compose(head, reverse)
last(['jumpkick', 'roundhouse', 'uppercut']) // 'uppercut'
```

`last`

is a function composed of the `head`

and `reverse`

functions:
it first calls `reverse`

and then `head`

.

Again, calling `last`

is the same as calling the two functions "manually":

```
head(reverse(['jumpkick', 'roundhouse', 'uppercut'])) // 'uppercut'
```

The order of the two functions matters in this case:
calling `head`

before `reverse`

wouldn't work at all because `reverse`

expects an array.
(If `reverse`

worked with strings as well,
the result would be `'kcikpmuj'`

,
which is totally different than `'uppercut'`

.)

## Why right-to-left is unintuitive

When you encounter `compose()`

,
you have to read its arguments backwards.
JavaScript, like most human languages, is written from left to right,
so having to read the arguments backwards is unintuitive.

When you encounter `const myFn = compose()`

,
you have to jump to the last argument of `compose`

to see what's the first function that `myFn`

calls,
and then backtrack to the left one argument at a time.

So, `compose(A, B, C)`

does not mean "first call `A`

, then `B`

and then `C`

" like one could expect.
It's the opposite: "first call `C`

, then `B`

and then `A`

." π€ΈββοΈ

Compare also with method chaining, which works from left to right:

```
'send in the clowns'.toUpperCase().exclaim()
// vs
compose(exclaim, toUpperCase)('send in the clowns')
['jumpkick', 'roundhouse', 'uppercut'].reverse().head()
// vs
compose(head, reverse)(['jumpkick', 'roundhouse', 'uppercut'])
```

## Why right-to-left makes sense (kind of)

The book justifies the right-to-left order very shallowly:

We could define a left to right version, however, we mirror the mathematical version much more closely as it stands. That's right, composition is straight from the math books.

It's been too long since high school math,
so I had to look up
*Function composition* on Wikipedia.
An example^{[2]}:

(πβπββ)(π§) = π(π(β(π§)))

Notice how the order of the functions π, π and β is the same on both sides of the equals sign.

This is true in JavaScript as well:
`compose(A, B, C)(arg)`

is the same as `A(B(C(arg)))`

.
Put more visually:

```
compose(A, B, C)(arg)
// β β β βββ
A( B( C( arg ) ) )
```

If you think of `compose()`

this way,
it *kind of* makes sense.

`pipe()`

is left-to-right and more intuitive

A "left-to-right `compose()`

" is called `pipe()`

.

For example,
Ramda has `R.pipe`

,
and Lodash has `_.flow`

which is aliased to `_.pipe`

in
`lodash/fp`

.
There's also an
ECMAScript proposal for adding a pipe/pipeline operator (`|>`

) to JavaScript.

An example from Ramda's documentation:

```
const f = R.pipe(Math.pow, R.negate, R.inc)
f(3, 4) // -(3^4) + 1
```

Compare with `R.compose`

:

```
const f = R.compose(R.inc, R.negate, Math.pow)
f(3, 4) // -(3^4) + 1
```

Piping is so much more intuitive that
I wonder what are the arguments for favoring `compose`

.
"That's how it works in math" is one argument,
but how good an argument is it?
If you know other arguments,
please tell me!

## Footnotes

The book is licensed under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Some code samples on this page are from the book; I have formatted them with Prettier. β©

I was wondering why I couldn't find a Unicode symbol for "mathematical italic small h" (β) even though I could find symbols for "mathematical italic small f" (π) and "mathematical italic small g" (π). Apparently because when the Unicode symbols for mathematical italic small letters were defined, β had already a different name for it: "Planck constant." Interesting! Source:

*Why are there holes in the Unicode table?*on Stack Overflow. β©