On 26/07/10 22:12, Eric Niebler wrote:
Convincing people of what in your article?
That C++ EDSL are good thanks to templae meta-programming in general
That compile-time introspection is a Good Thing?
Among other
What are the complaints you hear most often?
"It's C++ ?!?"
"Why not making a real compiler ?"
"Seriously, you CAN NOT get that fast, you're cheating"
"Who use C++ anyway ?"
"Again Expression Tempaltes, ok, that's old, please move on"
"how do you compare to <insert JAVA based library>, that's real
industrial strength system !"
"authors should focus on real benchmarks (like dot product) insetad of
this lengthy useless implementation description"
(Which article, btw?)
Among other:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3819406/edsl/parco_07.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3819406/edsl/europar_08.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3819406/edsl/pact_09.pdf
Note that most predates proto but are basically hand made C++ EDSL with
Expression Templates.
The pact paper is made out of proto though.
_______________________________________________
proto mailing list
proto@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
