Are you saying that you’re unable to read a fluent syntax that’s been supported by most mainstream programming languages for the past 10 years?

Or are you suggesting that the majority of programmers struggle to read and understand fluent method chaining?

I don’t have a dog in this fight because this blog post is very novice oriented. I’m just genuinely confused why you think it’s unreadable or “clunky”. What is it about the fluent example that you find clunky?

Can you show me how you would write it? I don't see how this contributes to the conversation unless you show me how or why

These patterns are commonplace for many years now in many languages.

The intention was to show how declarative code can come from imperative with a 'true' one-liner.

i think his point was that the actual LINQ (language integrated query) is already superior to transposing it back to the functional fluent version. i largely agree, especially when you're doing joins and group by.

i've worked with people in the past who refused to allow any actual LINQ in the codebase (use resharper to convert it to fluent!) even though it essentially became obfuscated.