Organize for extensibility

[osher]

I like a lot all that I read here - but -
I could not figure the logic of the order of the values in the index.

I think it's time to take a decision that will ensure the growth of this repo
Option 1 - sort values alphabetically

Pro: clear, neutral, streight forward. Con: less approachable: the narrative is lost

Option 2 - organize values in layers/chopters, each is organized internally by a narrative
Pro: able to tell the story and invite to dive deeper Con: it's prone to be disputed, and debated and could depend on personal style

I'll demonstrate:
e.g -

• layer 1 - functional basics - pure function, arity, closure, idempotence, etc..
• layer 2 - techniques - currying, contract, etc...
• layer 3 - design patterns - continuation, functor, point-free, etc...

Personally I like better then 2nd option, but even I myself cannot make up my mind what comes first - techniques or design patterns, or how to divide between the two. 😛

But I do think that the basics would better come first...

I'd love to start a PR and work with you if I knew where to go with this :)

[jethrolarson]

I think it's come up before and we did reorder some stuff by approachability as a result but accretion and complication snuck in. We're probably due for some revision. Ultimately this is a glossary so alphabetical is the most sensical order.

One thing that's dissuaded me from choosing a prescriptive order is that I can't guess what people know coming into the page, and that really changes what they should see in what order and the definitions should stand on their own (though that's not strictly true now)

I can imagine another derivative work taking a more prosaic form as in your option 2 but that's like a whole project in itself.

[hemanth]

Wondering if we should make a gitbook out it.

[jethrolarson]

@hemanth Yeah. There's obviously an appetite for something like this.