Funny how all these articles make me think that lambda&#x2F;closures are a very very nice syntax to create linguistic friendly structure. Automatically embedding of lexical scope avoid unnecessary names, assignments and side effects. Similarly to this talk <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=3717715" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=3717715</a> where the author demonstrates how often we write classes with a bit of state, a constructor, and a single method [1].. which is a what a function does for us.<p>Some programming classes takes some time to describe this habit of unnecessary wrapping[2]. From<p><pre><code>    ```
    if bool_var then true else false
    ```
</code></pre>
, to theses functions-written-as-classes, or even, depending on the language you use, function that wraps other functions disguised as operators<p><pre><code>    ```
    map(function add(x, y) { return x + y }, list)
    &#x2F;&#x2F; aka `map + list` in deeply functional languages
    ```
</code></pre>
[1] Java had many single method interfaces that can now be replaced by lambdas<p>[2] see Dan Grossman proglang on Coursera (taken from his original classes at UoWashington)