Skip to main content

The video of New Tools for a More Functional C++

My previous talk on New Tools for a More Functional C++ ran into some audio issue during the meetup. I did not upload the video back then because it had no audio what-so-ever. I finally got around to record the audio track for the talk and I mixed it with the video. So here is the final video. Have fun with FP in C++!

If you don't have 35 minutes, checkout the partial video transcripts below.

Functional Programming Tools in C++ from Sumant Tambe on Vimeo.

Video Transcripts

We’re going to talk about functional [programming] tools in C++ and what new capabilities exist in modern C++. 

I'm reviewing Functional Programming in C++ book by Manning---a good book for C++ programmers to acquire beginner to intermediate level knowledge of FP in C++.

Sum types and (pseudo) pattern matching in C++

Modeling a game of Tennis using std::variant

std::visit spews blood when you miss a case in the visitor. See an example. Therefore, language-supported pattern matching is much more preferable than library support for the same.

Passing overloaded lambdas to std::visit---the fancy way to create a visitor. User-defined deduction guides for overloading from lambdas.

Algorithms implemented using pattern matching style tend to concentrate the entire algorithm in a function as opposed to object-oriented programming style where the algorithm is spread in multiple classes and potentially multiple files.

Sharing state become much easier with inheritance as opposed to std::variant based decomposition.

Too much ceremony in std::variant approach as you have to call std::visit and pass a visitor to it. In object-oriented style, it is just a call to a function and hence it’s very succinct.

Recursive std::variant is not possible without recursive_variant. std::variant is a container not an abstraction. std::variant alone isn’t sufficient to implement algebraic data types or the Composite design pattern.

std::variant disables fluent interfaces.

A summary of differences between inheritance and std::variant –based modeling alternatives in C++.

Deep Immutability in C++. C++ const is shallow. A raw pointer does not forward const-ness, propagate_const does. You can now implement deep Immutability in C++ using propagate_const.

A class containing propagate_const is not copy-assignable. This is consistent with basic C++ rule that a pointer to const can’t be assigned to pointer to non-const.

Mutable temporaries in C++. Yes, temporaries can be modified. Modern C++ provides ways to control this. See why you may need std::move(*this);.

The Named Parameter Idiom---an example of fluent interface in C++. 

Avoid constructing unnecessary temporary objects when fluent interfaces are used with immutable objects.

How to disambiguate between r-value reference qualified functions and l-value reference qualified functions. *this in a r-value qualified function is a l-value. The trick is to return a r-value reference to *this. Hence std::move(*this), which is a simply a cast.

Thank you!


Thanks for sharing, I appreciate you breaking it out into text to save time as well :). Very informative of the new C++ tools available and I look forward to future updates.

Popular Content

Multi-dimensional arrays in C++11

What new can be said about multi-dimensional arrays in C++? As it turns out, quite a bit! With the advent of C++11, we get new standard library class std::array. We also get new language features, such as template aliases and variadic templates. So I'll talk about interesting ways in which they come together. It all started with a simple question of how to define a multi-dimensional std::array. It is a great example of deceptively simple things. Are the following the two arrays identical except that one is native and the other one is std::array? int native[3][4]; std::array<std::array<int, 3>, 4> arr; No! They are not. In fact, arr is more like an int[4][3]. Note the difference in the array subscripts. The native array is an array of 3 elements where every element is itself an array of 4 integers. 3 rows and 4 columns. If you want a std::array with the same layout, what you really need is: std::array<std::array<int, 4>, 3> arr; That's quite annoying for

Unit Testing C++ Templates and Mock Injection Using Traits

Unit testing your template code comes up from time to time. (You test your templates, right?) Some templates are easy to test. No others. Sometimes it's not clear how to about injecting mock code into the template code that's under test. I've seen several reasons why code injection becomes challenging. Here I've outlined some examples below with roughly increasing code injection difficulty. Template accepts a type argument and an object of the same type by reference in constructor Template accepts a type argument. Makes a copy of the constructor argument or simply does not take one Template accepts a type argument and instantiates multiple interrelated templates without virtual functions Lets start with the easy ones. Template accepts a type argument and an object of the same type by reference in constructor This one appears straight-forward because the unit test simply instantiates the template under test with a mock type. Some assertion might be tested in

Want speed? Use constexpr meta-programming!

It's official: C++11 has two meta-programming languages embedded in it! One is based on templates and other one using constexpr . Templates have been extensively used for meta-programming in C++03. C++11 now gives you one more option of writing compile-time meta-programs using constexpr . The capabilities differ, however. The meta-programming language that uses templates was discovered accidently and since then countless techniques have been developed. It is a pure functional language which allows you to manipulate compile-time integral literals and types but not floating point literals. Most people find the syntax of template meta-programming quite abominable because meta-functions must be implemented as structures and nested typedefs. Compile-time performance is also a pain point for this language feature. The generalized constant expressions (constexpr for short) feature allows C++11 compiler to peek into the implementation of a function (even classes) and perform optimization