Yes! I used to be on-the-fence about this, but then had to try and decipher code like YDKJS’s `run` [0]. Four levels of nested functions!
Python’s syntax makes this sort of thing impossible, which I now consider to be a good thing.
[0] https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/1st-ed/async...
Thanks to ES6, the async/await keyword for Promises help you get rid of the callback hell that Javascript can easily be.
Python support of asynchronous code is far behind Javascript and it is the basic requirement of frontend development.
But in the end, use what works for you, and if you need performance, you still have Go, Rust, and/or C++.
It is easier to rearrange, to test and to reason about, but it is harder to read.
Once your fast-written code works, you obviously need to optimize it where it's needed. And if you map/filter/reduce is your bottleneck, just get rid of it obviously.
But I highly doubt it will be your bottleneck.
Nested anonymous function that rely on scope closure is THE way to truly encapsulate your data, example: https://pastebin.com/JrAP6yGP
IMHO, the factory pattern is a clearer/easier pattern than Javascript's classes/prototypes.
Nested anonymous functions that contain complex bodies and rely on scope closure of args or local variables inside the complex bodies of exterior anonymous functions needs to stop being a thing, in any language, anywhere. It’s a massive antipattern.
Same for using functional programming constructs like map or filter or reduce with complex multi-statement nested anonymous functions. “Inlining” your anonymous function when it’s not just a simple statement is simply a terrible idea across the board.
It’s like living in crazy town to see that style defended as reasonable or treated like it’s valuable for a use case, etc.