Should Lisp programmers be slapped in public? (17.1.2006)

After fixing a nasty bug today, I let off some steam by surfing the 'net for fun stuff and new developments. For instance, Bjarne Stroustrup recently reported on the plans for C++0x. I like most of the stuff he presents, but still was left disturbingly unimpressed with it. Maybe it's just a sign of age, but somehow I am not really thrilled anymore by a programming language standard scheduled for 2008 which, for the first time in the history of the language, includes something as basic as a hashtable.

Yes, I know that pretty much all the major STL implementations already have hashtable equivalents, so it's not a real issue in practice. And yes, there are other very interesting concepts in the standard which make a lot of sense. Still - I used to be a C++ bigot, but I feel the zeal is wearing off; is that love affair over?

Confused and bewildered, I surf some other direction, but only to have Sriram Krishnan explain to me that Lisp is sin. Oh great. I happen to like Lisp a lot - do I really deserve another slap in the face on the same day?

But Sriram doesn't really flame us Lisp geeks; quite to the contrary. He is a programmer at Microsoft and obviously strongly impressed by Lisp as a language. His blog entry illustrates how Lisp influenced recent developments in C# - and looks at reasons why Lisp isn't as successful as many people think it should be.

Meanwhile, back in the C++ jungle: Those concepts are actually quite clever, and solve an important problem in using C++ templates.

In a way, C++ templates use what elsewhere is called duck typing. Why do I say this? Because the types passed to a template are checked implicitly by the template implementation rather than its declaration. If the template implementation says f = 0 and f is a template parameter, then the template assumes that f provides an assignment operator - otherwise the code simply won't compile. (The difference to duck typing in its original sense is that we're talking about compile-time checks here, not dynamic function call resolution at run-time.)

Hence, templates do not require types to derive from certain classes or interfaces, which is particularly important when using templates for primitive types (such as int or float). However, when the type check fails, you'll drown in error messages which are cryptic enough to violate the Geneva convention. To fix the error, the user of a template often has to inspect the implementation of the template to understand what's going on. Not exactly what they call encapsulation.

Generics in .NET improve on this by specifying constraints explicitly:

  static void Foobar<T>(IFun<T> fun) where T : IFunny<T>
    ... function definition ...

T is required to implement IFunny. If it doesn't, the compiler will tell you that T ain't funny at all, and that's that. No need to dig into the implementation details of the generic function.

C++ concepts extend this idea: You can specify pretty arbitrary restrictions on the type. An example from Stroustrup's and Dos Reis' paper:

  concept Assignable<typename T, typename U=T> {
    Var<T> a;
    Var<const U> b;
    a = b;

  ;; using this in a template definition:
  template <typename T, typename U>
    where Assignable<T, U>
  ... template definition ...

So if T and U fit into the Assignable concept, the compiler will accept them as parameters of the template. This is cute: In true C++ tradition, this provides maximum flexibility and performance, but solves the original problem.

Still, that C# code is much easier on the eye...

When asked for a TWiki account, use your own or the default TWikiGuest account.

Revision: r1.1 - 17 Feb 2006 - 20:47 - ClausBrod
Blog > BlogOnSoftware20060117
Copyright © 1999-2023 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback