"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> writes:
3. One of the main lessons I brought from numerous examples of GTM is actually that we need to stay away from FP in our production programming as far as possible. After all usage of FP techniques it's primary reason why compilation more and more taking ridiculously long time nowadays.
How much expressiveness are you willing to trade away in order to get short compile times? I would choose a Spirit parser over a hand-written one any day, simply because the Spirit parser is more maintainable and more directly expresses the intent of the programmer, and does so at the same level of abstraction at which the programmer is thinking.
Actually the point of my remark is that would we be able to write meta programs in imperative style instead of FP style compilation would be much faster.
The slowness of metaprogram compilation has almost *nothing* to do with the FP style of metaprogramming, and almost everything to do with the accidental nature of the metaprogram evaluation engine (using template instantiation). In fact, you *can* write metaprograms in an imperative style, given an appropriate framework designed to interpret them correctly. It'll be much slower than what we use today.
And Spirit framework would benefit from it the most.
I doubt that. Parsing in particular has little to gain from the use of mutable data.
IOW from where I stand now I wouldn't want my fellow coworkers to start using FP in our design. If you(anybody) know an example where FP actually does bring any advantages, please step out.
Consider me stepped. Even using as simple an algorithm as for_each with an appropriate function object has some advantages over a hand-written loop.
I never question usefulness of function object (any-morphic). What I do seek is an example of lazy list application.
Then you should say so. "FP has no advantages" is a far cry from "Lazy lists have no advantages". -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com