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

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
contradict this.

Gennadiy.