On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 10:55:13 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Monday 07 September 2015 12:40, Bahman Movaqar wrote:
I can see some serious advantages of this, most notable of
which is minimum side-effect and predictability of the code.
However I suppose it's going to impact the performance and
memory footprint as well, though I have no idea how deep the
impact will be.
I don't see how merely marking things immutable/pure would
affect performance negatively. They're just marks on the type.
If anything, you could get a performance boost from the
stricter guarantees. But realistically, there won't be a
difference.
Just "marks", eh?
I was under the impression that when a variable, that is declared
as `immutable`, is passed to a function, a copy of the value is
passed.
However based on "marks" I can imagine that since the data is
marked as `immutable` only a reference is passed; and the
compiler guarantees that what is referenced to never changes. Am
I right?
If you change your algorithms to avoid mutable/impure, then you
may see worse performance than if you made use of them. But I
suppose that would be "a reason not to" mark everything
immutable/pure.
True.
Nowadays that more algorithms are designed with parallelism and
distribution in mind, though, I believe mutating values and
impure functions, at least in certain domains, will cease to
exist.
