@bascule You identified real problems, but there aren't easy answers. Taming mutability is like closing Pandora's box.
A little bird told me @littlecalculist was quite skeptical of all my proposals to tame the wild nature of Ruby's mutable state for MT progs
-
-
-
@littlecalculist for Ruby, each class could independently implement#deep_freeze, an you could start with core classes (Hash, Array, String) -
@bascule Y, I've wondered about that. I'll concede that making them overrideable, w/o default, might work. I'm still skeptical. Ex: closures -
@littlecalculist Proc#deep_freeze should raise an exception, IMO (much like Marshal does already)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@bascule Heh, I guess I tweeted that out loud, huh? :) Yeah, deep_* is almost never a good idea. -
@littlecalculist as far as dynlangs that deep copy go, Erlang comes to mind -
@bascule Deep copy in a pure language is *totally* different from deep copy in a language with heavy use of mutation. -
@littlecalculist yeah, definitely... but with heap-level isolation, I don't see why that approach couldn't be applied to mutable langs
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.