From: Dave Gomboc (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-03 18:47:14
> In any case, I failed to extol other (non-obvious) virtues of
> the quicksort example. A lazy quicksort can be used...
The skeptic will in turn point to the C++ standard library routines:
> Again, the overall point is that some of the "slower"
> elements of FC++ can offer you trade-offs: choices you
> wouldn't otherwise have. Lists and lazy evaluation may not
> always be the best choice for performance- critical portions
> of applications, but for other cases they can often yield
> novel and/or simpler designs.
I think it's too much to ask Brian to defend functional programming as a
whole. Some people will use fc++, and some won't -- I don't see how
this differs from regex, spirit, etc. Ten years ago if you spoke of
generic programming you might get a funny look from people, and "what do
I need that for?". That's the reaction I'm sensing about functional
programming by some reviewers. I hope that the review manager ignores
that reaction, and makes their decision based upon the library itself.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk