Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> However, C++ still doesn't have lambda 
> expressions, and I'm rather at a loss why the people working on the 
> standards called it that, since they aren't lambdas and they *didn't* 
> include "lambda" as a keyword.

  This sounds like the same type of argument as "xyz is not an OS" vs.
"xyz is an OS", depending on your definition of "OS".

  One of the basic definition of "lambda function" in programming languages
is that they are "first-class objects". A first-class object is, usually,
defined as something you can express as a literal (or, in the case of
lambda functions, as a "nameless" function implementation), something
which you can create/instantiate "on the spot", and which you can store
in a variable.

  Some people might use the term "lambda function" as a synonym for
"nameless function".

  In the same way as something being or not being an operating system
depending on how pedantic you are about the definition, it can be fair
to say that something like the new C++ lambda functions can be said to
be or not be "true" lambda functions depending on how pedantic you want
to be about the definition.

  If you really want to be so pedantic about the definition, then by all
means. It's just rather irritating when you start mocking the language
because you don't agree with their terminology.

> It sounds 
> more like you're prejudice than me, really, defending C++ for some reason 
> without actually offering any evidence I'm wrong.

  It was not a question of being right or wrong. It was a question of your
glaringly condescending attitude, which was deliberately inflammatory.
You didn't show any respect whatsoever to people who might actually like
the language (nor to the people who are trying very hard to make it
better).

> If I'm prejudiced and 
> right, what does it matter that I'm prejudiced?

  You were not right. You started asking questions until you found
something which you could argue you are right about. You started with
prejudiced mocking without even knowing about how the feature will be
implemented. You had already decided that the feature sucks, without
even knowing anything about it.

> The syntax also sucks, to a great extent due to the lame attempt to remain 
> compatible with a different language they're already incompatible with. Had 
> every C program actually been a valid C++ program with the same semantics, 
> this might have made sense, but they failed to ensure this too.

  You could use the same argument to say that the syntax of Java and C# suck
as well.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message