From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-07 00:25:28
> 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.
I don't think I hear during review any complains about generic adaptors
e.t.c, cause these are natural to C++ even though originated in FP paradigm.
> In fact, it has been a part of C++ since templates were added, since
> templates are by nature functional.
I am not sure what that mean. What is 'functional' in basic_string class
template? May be we just need to define terms.
> 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.
> 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.
May be you looked deeper into FC++, but what would left of it if you remove
lazy_list from it? Almost nothing that we don't have already in some form
in boost (there could be a discussion on different lambda approach and %
notation). That's why I sometimes kinda associated FC++ with innovations
that came with it. IOW with lazy_list and everything related to it. From
that stand point I believed in my review (still do) that FC++ is just a toy
not a Tool. Toy is something kids play with, Tool is something adults use
to do a real job. And I do not see lazy_list as a Tool to do anything that
has practical use. And I do not believe author presented example to
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk