From: Dave Gomboc (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-03 18:47:14
> In any case, I failed to extol other (non-obvious) virtues of
> the quicksort example. A lazy quicksort can be used...
The skeptic will in turn point to the C++ standard library routines:
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/partial_sort.html
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/nth_element.html
> Again, the overall point is that some of the "slower"
> elements of FC++ can offer you trade-offs: choices you
> wouldn't otherwise have. Lists and lazy evaluation may not
> always be the best choice for performance- critical portions
> of applications, but for other cases they can often yield
> novel and/or simpler designs.
I think it's too much to ask Brian to defend functional programming as a
whole. Some people will use fc++, and some won't -- I don't see how
this differs from regex, spirit, etc. Ten years ago if you spoke of
generic programming you might get a funny look from people, and "what do
I need that for?". That's the reaction I'm sensing about functional
programming by some reviewers. I hope that the review manager ignores
that reaction, and makes their decision based upon the library itself.
Dave