Re: [boost] Re: FC++: formal review

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-02 07:26:51

Brian McNamara wrote:
>
> 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.)

As much as we'd like to avoid the "academia vs trenches" issue, from time to
time it becomes pretty much impossible to ignore, and one of these times is
now.

FC++, as presented, just looks and feels too much a research project to the
ordinary C++ practitioner. It would probably help a lot if its "sales pitch"
did take into account the "trenches" viewpoint. Just my opinion.