Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-14 08:34:11

"G. Wang" <visionsoft_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> I'm interested. My first question would be, "what kinds of real
>> problems can I solve better/more easily/more expressively with UBL
>> than with approaches we already have available?" That's the test that
> UBL allows you to write Prolog-like code directly inside C++. The current
> Prolog is modeled directly to the Prolog standard. So IMHO your question is
> equivalent to
> "what kind of real problems can I solve better/more easily/more expressively
> with Prolog than with approaches we already have available in C++?"
> Prolog is the preferred language in the field of AI, expert systems,
> business logics, etc. There are lots of discussions about why Prolog
> is better in those areas than traditional procedure-oriented or
> object-oriented languages. I don't think that I can cover the
> reasons in just a few paragraph.

It's not quite equivalent. You have to ask whether a _C++ Program_
would benefit enough from that paradigm to make it worthwhile to
suffer the imperfect expression of it that you can achieve in a

FC++ is modeled directly on Haskell, and I fully believe that there
are real problems that one would choose to solve first in Haskell, but
that didn't turn out to mean that a translation into C++ could provide
compelling advantages to people already writing software in C++.

Please take this question seriously. We all felt really badly about
not accepting FC++ into Boost at the end of its formal review, which
was a substantial emotional/time investment for its author. It was a
really interesting library, but it seemed to fail a crucial
utility/practicality test. I don't want something like that to
happen to you.

This post (
begins to give me some assurance, but it would be very helpful to hear
more from you.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at