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

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-08 00:30:27

> > [...]
> > This is not nesserary good thing. I would prefer to be able to use
> > imperetive style in metaprogramming.
>
> Really?  You would want mutable types?  So suppose I define a
> class type, and then you use it in one place, and I redefine it later,
> and you use it again?  Does the fact that the ODR is broken bother
> you?

If you want to fantasize that class definitions would be constants in such
languadge, while templates would be 'variables'.

> > > > Toy is something kids play with, Tool is something adults use
> > > > to do a real job.
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > I think this is a pretty unprofessional way to make your point.
> >
> > If you think so. I was just used analogies you introduced.
>
> I didn't refer to anyone's work as a toy.  Rather, I was making the
> claim that a paradigm was *not* a toy.  That's neutral.  Calling
> FC++ a toy, and then saying that "kids play with toys" implies
> that anyone who uses FC++ is "a kid".  That's insulting.  Or was
> that a backhanded compliment that I didn't understand?

Oh, well. I don't believe I have to excuse myself if you manage to dog
something insulting in completely innocent statement, especially taken out
of context. But just for the record, It should've mean in context where it
was used:

Toy (scientific project) is something kids (theorists) are play with (work
on), Tool (reusable library) is something adults (c++ practitioners) use to
do a real job (in production code).

Gennadiy.