On Monday, 26 October 2015 at 20:46:21 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 10/26/2015 08:31 PM, Ulrich Küttler wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 18:49:26 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/21/2015 12:25 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
My experience with immutable containers is that their
performance is
trash precisely because you can't mutate them.
That's actually the experience in the Scala community. Over
and again
people start with immutable containers all over the place
because
they're cool, and end up with mutable containers because they
work. --
Andrei
Ranges and loops. Same story. Ranges are cool, loops get stuff
done.
This kind of reasoning sounds cool but is ultimately misguided.
(I don't think the stories are even analogous.)
Nobody argues against ranges.
The argument is: Designing range-based code results in something
very different from traditional loop-based code. There are very
good reasons why the effort is worthwhile, still, the effort is
real. (See the calendar example.) Even those library primitives
do not come for free.
The same is true about containers. The container variant is a
design choice, not an implementation detail. Now, are persistent
containers worth the effort? What would a design based on
persistent containers look like? Is there a good way to implement
them in D?
Who knows.
