Hate to be the Debbie downer here, but this is kind of boring. Since templates are well-known to be Turing complete[1], writing a more &quot;pure&quot; functional wrapper around them (essentially what Fulmar is) is  not really that interesting. The paper claims that this kind of code-generation simplifies the task of maintaining a code-base. I&#x27;m not really convinced. It also claims that the generated code is easy to debug. I fear that this is straight-up disingenuous. Go make a template blow up in C++ and try to decipher what the hell you did wrong.<p>You should be very wary of abusing templates like this. It seems that the general C&#x2F;C++ trend is to replace one monster (preprocessor macros), with another bigger and badder one. The horror (the horror![2]).<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;stackoverflow.com&#x2F;questions&#x2F;189172&#x2F;c-templates-turing-complete" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;stackoverflow.com&#x2F;questions&#x2F;189172&#x2F;c-templates-turing...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=rDK9MDklzFo" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=rDK9MDklzFo</a>