[boost] Re: Re: FC++ -- Formal Review Result

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-06 01:51:53

"Jon Kalb" <jonkalb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:435B34B617D19D40977CBB72A9C3463801A1F7AD_at_RED-MSG-53.redmond.corp.microsoft.c
> [...]
> It is clear that C++ has some form of functional programming in
> its future and I'm glad we have people of this caliber working on it.

I would just like to reiterate an important point that Joel made that
parts of the C++ community don't seem to have gotten yet.  FP has
been a part of C++ since the STL became a staple of C++ code.
In fact, it has been a part of C++ since templates were added, since
templates are by nature functional.  Anyone who thinks that FP in
C++ is just a toy obviously hasn't gotten past "C with classes".  I'm
not directing this at you Jon, but rather using your statement as an
excuse to make a point.

> Whatever we end up with in Boost and eventually in the Standard,
> whether it is a future submission of FC++ or some other approach,
> it will be better for the work that Brian has done in this version and
> I think we are indebted to him, Mat, and the library reviewers for
> their effort.

I second this sentiment, and let me add that accepting FC++ or
adding it to the standard won't be "adding FP to C++" any more
than accepting MPL amounted to "adding metaprogramming to
C++".  Rather, it will simply be "adding another tool for a lesser
supported paradigm in C++".  And since when is having more
tools a bad thing?  C++ is hard enough without having to reinvent
the wheel every time.

Dave

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 2/9/2004