> functional programming (which is not that complicated at all in C++)
> I think most C++ programmers have a reasonable command of all of these
These gave me a bit of a chuckle. It's true only if you've never done proper functional programming using a genuinely functional language.
It's true that you can now pass lambdas around as first-class values easily, store and manipulate them as you might in a functional language, and that's a fantastic convenience.
But that's not what functional programming is. None of the idioms you'd use in Clojure or Haskell are wise to use (yet) in C++ (although Niebler's Range library will make a big step in the right direction... in C++20, where it's currently slated for specification).
If you try to do real functional programming in C++, you'll end up with a very inefficient program that pales to writing an algorithm with a more procedural or OO idiom.
And, in my experience interacting with lots of C++ developers, most do not know what actual functional programming is all about.
Sorry, but this is just simply not true. If you've never done functional programming before, then I could see why you think doing it in C++ is not complicated. Here is an example of just how large the can of worms gets when attempting to bring functional programming to C++:
And, I disagree that you can change the definition of a particular programming paradigm when discussing a particular language. Functional programming means something that is not really possible in C++. For starters, the fundamental underlying data structures for functional programming do not exist in C++ and there is no third-party implementation of them worth mentioning; the above experiment is admitted by the author to fall flat when doing anything idiomatic.
As I mentioned before, C++20 might turn the tide on this front a little bit, thanks to the Range library.
Fine, what shall we call this programming style in C++ (lambdas, immutability, function composition, etc) so that everyone is happy then?
Functional style C++?
I haven't felt the need to go deeper than that, it's very possible that I've missed many interesting things, but it's not clear that I can use those things and see tangible benefits in my projects today.
> I think most C++ programmers have a reasonable command of all of these
These gave me a bit of a chuckle. It's true only if you've never done proper functional programming using a genuinely functional language.
It's true that you can now pass lambdas around as first-class values easily, store and manipulate them as you might in a functional language, and that's a fantastic convenience.
But that's not what functional programming is. None of the idioms you'd use in Clojure or Haskell are wise to use (yet) in C++ (although Niebler's Range library will make a big step in the right direction... in C++20, where it's currently slated for specification).
If you try to do real functional programming in C++, you'll end up with a very inefficient program that pales to writing an algorithm with a more procedural or OO idiom.
And, in my experience interacting with lots of C++ developers, most do not know what actual functional programming is all about.