I would just like to reiterate an important point that Joel made that parts of the C++ community don't seem to have gotten yet. FP has been a part of C++ since the STL became a staple of C++ code.
I don't think I hear during review any complains about generic adaptors e.t.c, cause these are natural to C++ even though originated in FP paradigm.
In fact, it has been a part of C++ since templates were added, since templates are by nature functional.
I am not sure what that mean. What is 'functional' in basic_string class template? May be we just need to define terms.
Anyone who thinks that FP in C++ is just a toy obviously hasn't gotten past "C with classes". I'm not directing this at you Jon, but rather using your statement as an excuse to make a point.
[...]
I second this sentiment, and let me add that accepting FC++ or adding it to the standard won't be "adding FP to C++" any more than accepting MPL amounted to "adding metaprogramming to C++". Rather, it will simply be "adding another tool for a lesser supported paradigm in C++". And since when is having more tools a bad thing? C++ is hard enough without having to reinvent the wheel every time.
May be you looked deeper into FC++, but what would left of it if you remove lazy_list from it? Almost nothing that we don't have already in some form in boost (there could be a discussion on different lambda approach and % notation). That's why I sometimes kinda associated FC++ with innovations that came with it. IOW with lazy_list and everything related to it. From that stand point I believed in my review (still do) that FC++ is just a toy not a Tool. Toy is something kids play with, Tool is something adults use to do a real job. And I do not see lazy_list as a Tool to do anything that has practical use. And I do not believe author presented example to contradict this. Gennadiy.