Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-18 20:32:38

On 11/19/2014 12:14 PM, Gavin Lambert wrote:
> On 19/11/2014 13:55, Vladimir Batov wrote:
>> On 11/19/2014 10:52 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>> Things are moving in C++ to the functional paradigm very quick. People
>>> would need to learn,  soon or late,  functional programming and
>>> monads. I'm sorry, they are viral !!!
>>
>> You may well be right... Still, I would not be that quick and decisive
>> underestimating people's inertia. After all, functional programming
>> languages have been around much longer than C++. I do not see them
>> occupying minds of the programming majority. Even using primitive
>> functional programming in C++ (say, std::for_each instead of ol' and
>> trusty for loop) has not been exactly "viral". :-)
>
> A lot of that has been the lack of proper lambdas and closures until 
> "recently" (even now, many people are still using pre-C++11 compilers).
>
> While it's certainly *possible* to write functional-ish code without 
> these, I don't think anyone would disagree that "bind" and friends 
> uglify the code and often require contortions to provide required 
> inputs and outputs.

While I agree with your point I suspect there might be something more 
fundamental why functional programming in C++ and functional programming 
in general has been on the fringes of and hardly present in mainstream 
commercial s/w development (not academia).