Re: vc or vc++??
"Ulrich Eckhardt" <eckhardt@satorlaser.com> wrote in message
news:17aiq4-pp9.ln1@satorlaser.homedns.org...
Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] wrote:
I certainly prefer sin(x) over Math.sin(x).
Hmmm, how about std::sin(x)? I don't find that cumbersome but I too like
the
distinction between calling a memberfunction and invoking a function from
a
namespace.
95% of the time one of these "OOP languages" has a public static method
in
the base library, it's a workaround for a missing language feature
(sometimes you actually need membership to get access to private members,
but that usually isn't the motivation, and C++ has "friend").
Yes, 'static' is used to escape a forced OOP style at least in the Java
code
I have seen.
C++ can do it the OOP way like all those languages, but can also use
library-of-functions style when that's more appropriate, or template
metaprogramming, whichever suits the problem best. Although I guess if
functional programming is a better fit you're out of luck with C++.
TMP is a gross hack and produces barely readable code for otherwise very
simple things. I'd say the lack of metaprogramming is one big lack in C++,
and http://www.stepanovpapers.com/notes.pdf in fact agrees, providing
examples for a syntax. Hmmm, I remember first learning C and was very
surprised that the preprocessor couldn't do things like loops, too.
Ok, but preprocessor loops vs TMP is like macros vs inline functions.
Preprocessor loops will tend to have uncontrolled side effects, as well as
not being typesafe, disregarding namespaces, and all the other things that
the preprocessor does.
I'm guessing what you are referring to is more than just replacing the
preprocessor with perl (which I've done at times, it's very powerful).
As far as functional programming is concerned, I don't really understand
it.
The only thing I know about it is that functions or code can be treated
like objects. For example you can return them from functions and store
them
in variables. This however is also achieved by boost/tr1::function.
What is also missing in C++ is lambda expressions and (maybe) local
functions. Using Boost.Lambda isn't really a good replacement, nor is a
static function of a local class.
You just said you didn't... lambda expressions and associated concepts like
closures and continuations are the meat of functional programming.
Uli