Hi Peter,

> > > > Meta-programming? C++. This is far more important than anything
else.
> > >
> > > Never used Lisp, huh?
> >
> > Ahh Larry you seem intent on attempting to belittle me. I am familiar
with
> > Lisp. Who can get a degree (or two) and not be? No, I don't use it
> > professionally. I don't use ML professionally either, but that doesn't
mean
> > I have no understanding of FP. FP rocks, we all know that. It is also
very
> > intellectual, and above most people. But that doesn't mean that we
should
> > throw away the notion of functions as first-class-objects.
>
> If you are suggesting that Lisp *is* FP, you are not familiar with
> Lisp.  Lisp can support FP as well as procedural, OO etc, etc ....
> Add anything you choose ;-)  You might be thinking of Scheme.

Not at all, although perhaps my language (pun not intended) wasn't clear. I
merely wished to claim that C++ can be used effectively within a number of
different conceptual frameworks. The implication was that the choice of
language is simply a perversion; what really matters are your conceptual
hierarchies and how you use them to solve problems. Functional programming
is traditionally viewed as being very good at expressing a limited range of
problems. The same is true for other 'academic' language types, such as
Lisp. My position is that these are artificial fetters. I use functional
programming methodologies (strong typing, functors, constness) as well as
other methodologies (genericity and polymorphism, although I grow
uncomfortable with OO), within one language system. Conversely, the guys at
Naughty Dog (authors of the Crash Bandicoot series on the PS/X) write %90 of
their games in a custom interpreted Lisp.

I am always on the look-out for new concepts and ideas from other languages
however, even though I know that I will probably want to express them myself
in C++ eventually.

> Peter

Christian