The latter looks gross, but has something the former doesnt: words and names. Even if it's verbose and ugly, I can at least puzzle it out just based on the information at hand (I can figure out that <> is similar to (), and Enumerable/Select/Func/Collection/Result are all words I can figure out). I wouldn't be able to write that expression without knowing the language, but, I can read it, even if it's gross. It's also much easier to lookup. I can google IEnumerable a lot more easily than "what is -> after ::".
The haskell version on the other hand is undeniably more elegant, but if I don't know those symbols I'm ENTIRELY lost. There's nothing about :: that means anything to me if I don't look it up. Likewise -> only implies... a transform of some sort? And [a] might mean a list, or, it might mean optional, or it might mean... lots of things.
To be clear, I like the haskell version better, but it is more opaque to a beginner.
The haskell version on the other hand is undeniably more elegant, but if I don't know those symbols I'm ENTIRELY lost. There's nothing about :: that means anything to me if I don't look it up. Likewise -> only implies... a transform of some sort? And [a] might mean a list, or, it might mean optional, or it might mean... lots of things.
To be clear, I like the haskell version better, but it is more opaque to a beginner.