Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   It's not like the new features would *replace* existing features. They
> > are pure additions. So I really don't see your point.

> >   Lambdas will be at core language level in the exact same way as eg.
> > generics in Java are at cure language level. I don't see your problem.

> They interact poorly with the rest of the language, putting arbitrary 
> limitations on them, and thus not actually solving the problems lambdas are 
> usually used to solve. Thereby generally forcing yet another round of syntax 
> and kludge piled on top of the existing language, in the next release when 
> people try to fix *that*.

  Says the person who didn't even know how lambda functions will be
implemented in the next C++.

  Good thing you are not prejudiced in the least.

> >   And lambdas in the new C++ are syntactic sugar. The compiler will generate
> > exactly the same machine code as if you had written a non-lambda function.

> Yeah. Which means they aren't lambdas. They're just called lambdas.

  I like it how you succeed in making *everything* sound negative when
applied to C++, while at the same time the *exact same thing* is positive
in other languages.

  For example, generics in Java being "just syntactic sugar" is a positive
thing, while lambdas in C++ being "just syntactic sugar" is a negative thing.

  Good thing you are not biased in the least.

> You can't have closures in a language without runtime type information.

  Oh, now C++ doesn't even have RTTI. Right.

  Like "lambdas", what is called "RTTI" in C++ is not *really* RTTI, right?

  I start seeing your general rule of thumb: Every programming language
feature, when implemented in C++, either isn't *really* that true feature,
or is magically converted into a negative aspect of the language (while
it's a positive feature in all other languages).

> >> (2) not wanting to add any syntax for it,
> > 
> >   Have you even looked at how lambda functions will be written in the new
> > C++ standard? How is it not adding new syntax for it?

> A complete lack of any sort of keyword, like, oh, "lambda" maybe?

  Wow. The lack of a keyword is now a negative feature. Right.

  I'm sure that if there was a keyword, that would also be a negative
feature. *Everything* is negative when implemented in C++.

> >   Good thing you are not prejudiced nor biased in the least.

> "Prejudiced" would imply that I'm not making judgements based on experience, 
> but rather based on lack of knowledge.

  Are you seriously telling me that you did extensive research on the
new lambda function feature as specified by the current C++0x standard
draft before making your remarks? Because it certainly didn't sound like
that to me. It sounded more like you were making tons of assumptions and
bashing the feature based solely on that.

> I'm biased against ugly languages that are a pile of hacks to fix flaws in 
> other hacks.

  At least you dare to admit it.

> >> No. I just don't like C++.
> > 
> >   And for that reason you have to constantly write prejudiced BS about it.

> It's neither prejudiced nor BS. What makes you think it's prejudiced?

  Because you write about a new language feature without even knowing how
it will be implemented.

> I'll just have to laugh at people 
> who say that C++ is adding lambda expressions in the next release, just like 
> I laugh when people say things like "C++ has automatic memory management as 
> long as you write all the management code into your application and take 
> care not to hit the corner cases that blow up your memory model."

  I hope you have a good time laughing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message