Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ named requirements as concepts
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 03:57:47 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <86a5fazz2s.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vcn7kn$1n3bh$2@dont-email.me> <vd98f1$1aius$1@dont-email.me> <vdbed8$1o0lg$1@dont-email.me> <20240929144913.000051e4@yahoo.com> <vde8ki$28003$1@dont-email.me> <vdehu2$29uog$1@dont-email.me> <vdeoej$2b22u$1@dont-email.me> <vdg8qn$2l73s$1@dont-email.me> <vdga7d$2lbv9$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vdgcku$2lih8$1@dont-email.me> <20241001125332.000058ba@yahoo.com> <vdghc8$2me2g$1@dont-email.me> <20241001131141.000016b1@yahoo.com> <vdh739$2q4kk$1@dont-email.me> <20241001215050.000027aa@yahoo.com> <86bk0319w3.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20241002130236.000005e0@yahoo.com> <8634lc0y43.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20241006141907.00005a57@yahoo.com> <86iku3zydq.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20241007225315.00006d81@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:57:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c69fe22f3f04b1159714f26b61f0388"; logging-data="3824739"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/znrBNkzw91gCuWMctQC/TrAwnBS6zBzg="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rOiOGuf35mRstJ7hVOxcQ1rRaRs= sha1:+ygtNb8EYKySOXk81rZvpiwgTy4=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:120699

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Mon, 07 Oct 2024 09:11:29 -0700
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 06:57:32 -0700
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 20:06:20 -0700
>>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And best (for me, personally, YMMV) solution in pure
>>>>>>> functional languges is to avoid programming in such
>>>>>>> languages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you count as a pure functional language?
>>>>>
>>>>> C++ templates sub-languges.  I.e. approximately compile-time
>>>>> part of C++ taken in isolation from run-time part and without
>>>>> C++11 and later additions.
>>>>
>>>> If that's your only example then not very much is excluded.
>>>
>>> Since I don't like functional programming it seems to me rather
>>> natural that I am positioned as far as it goes from being an
>>> expert in the field.
>>
>> Sorry, I think my comment came across wrongly.  The point of my
>> question is not to criticize your reactions but to understand
>> just what things you are reacting to.  Different people have
>> different ideas of what "functional programming" means.  What
>> language qualities make a language one you would rather avoid?
>
> Since we are in C++ group, let's take examples from C++.
> I never use std::for_each().
> I don't use lambda expressions as argument for 'compare' parameter
> in std::sort or std::nth_element.  If it was possible, I wouldn't
> use object of class with operator() for such parameter either.
> Instead I would prefer pointer to normal named member function.
> May be, it is possible, but I don't know the syntax.  I hate
> functional stuff pushed down my throat by <random> and would very
> much prefer the same very useful functionality provided in other
> way.
>
>> Or conversely, what attributes tend to make a language attractive
>> or one that you would prefer?
>
> I prefer to see sequence of steps.  Or, at least to have some idea
> about it in 'as if' fashion.

I must confess I am still somewhat baffled, although I do get
a sense of what you're reacting to.  For now I will leave it
at that;  thank you for the explanation.