Code needs to read like good copywriting: obvious to the reader as if they were the author. Good copywriting needs to be aware of the target audience and the idioms they use.
Abstractions and jargon come along with the audience. It's critical to write for your target audience.
If you work with people who think computers are proof verifiers, splat is probably best for you. Then again, you should probably be writing it in Haskell/Fay/ML/...
If you work with people who think computers are shufflers of bits, then maybe a for loop is best.
And if you work with people who think computers are consumers of over-specified utility libraries, perhaps there's a iterator subclass implementation to be made.
> write for your target audience [and the rest of your comment]
No.
Good writers write good copies that are good for (almost) any target audience.
This applies to code too.
For me archetypal "good python code" examples can be found in http://norvig.com/, eg http://norvig.com/lispy.html and it doesn't care about abstractions, jargon, splat, and other things.
Abstractions and jargon come along with the audience. It's critical to write for your target audience.
If you work with people who think computers are proof verifiers, splat is probably best for you. Then again, you should probably be writing it in Haskell/Fay/ML/...
If you work with people who think computers are shufflers of bits, then maybe a for loop is best.
And if you work with people who think computers are consumers of over-specified utility libraries, perhaps there's a iterator subclass implementation to be made.