> any example using a lambda in C++ I find to be 10,000× worse than the functional equivalent. > I naïvely assumed that the keyword `lambda' was involved. I d

> any example using a lambda in C++ I find to be 10,000× worse than the functional equivalent. > I naïvely assumed that the keyword `lambda' was involved. I don't understand how this two sentences co-exist. If you are unfamiliar with the syntax, surely you can't have a well informed opinion on which usage, in practice, turns out better? I am assuming "functional equivalent" means the old named functors of C++03. And yea, you are likely super alone on that opinion. I normally say lambdas in C++11 mostly-obsolete (at least as the default) a huge class of the old ways from functors to bind/placeholders and friends. I don't think I've ever heard someone pining for the ol' days on this one.