From: Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-01 20:23:19
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 11:31:32PM +0000, Matthew Vogt wrote:
> The documentation in FC++ on the other hand is directed more at programmers
> who understand the functional programming domain, and now want to apply
> those concepts in C++.
> (Aside: why is FC++ targetted the way it is?
The fact that the Boost FC++ documentation is misdirected is merely a
reflection of my own failure as a documentation writer: despite good
intentions, I failed to have a nose for my audience. A number of
constructive criticisms have been offered, and I think I can do a
better job next time around.
The fact that most of the prior FC++ documentation is directed at FPers
is no accident; rather it's a function of research interest that FC++
generated and the publication venues that prior articles have appeared
in. (I will spare any more details here, as it's hard to say much more
without making gross generalizations about "the theory people" versus
"the practice people", etc.)
Ideally I would like for FC++ to help bridge the FP and OOP
communities, serving both as a way for C++ programmers to have a
platform for realizing more "functional" designs, as well as offering
FPers a way to experiment with C++ in a way that's familiar to them.
Pragmatically, as a Boost library, the former concern should be more of
a priority than the latter.
-- -Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk