Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2024 09:11:29 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 44 Message-ID: <86iku3zydq.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <20240929144913.000051e4@yahoo.com> <20241001125332.000058ba@yahoo.com> <20241001131141.000016b1@yahoo.com> <20241001215050.000027aa@yahoo.com> <86bk0319w3.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20241002130236.000005e0@yahoo.com> <8634lc0y43.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20241006141907.00005a57@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2024 18:11:30 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a62c12983f398f111226e581353fb46e"; logging-data="1829219"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qAhRDlrkWNjm9dBiomXk7fhQyl0ES1QA=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:fDSe3o/V824u2Hfp+PWgE7kuZxI= sha1:W0+JkDY4EjUNDBbpaoItkVX5ji8= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:120623 Michael S writes: > On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 06:57:32 -0700 > Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Michael S writes: >> >>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 20:06:20 -0700 >>> Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> Michael S 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? Or conversely, what attributes tend to make a language attractive or one that you would prefer? > So far I found only one field of computer programming that I like > even less - regular expressions. I admit to being puzzled by this reaction. Regular expressions tend not to be very useful outside of a rather narrow niche, but inside their domain of application they are pretty handy. Are you saying that you would rather not use regular expressions even in situations where they are convenient? Or is it that you don't find such cases coming up in your regular programming activities?