←back to thread

John Carmack on mutable variables

(twitter.com)
498 points azhenley | 1 comments | 31 Oct 25 02:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.308s | source
Show context
munchler ◴[31 Oct 25 02:54 UTC] No.45767832[source]▶
> Making almost every variable const at initialization is good practice. I wish it was the default, and mutable was a keyword.

It's funny how functional programming is slowly becoming the best practice for modern code (pure functions, no side-effects), yet functional programming languages are still considered fringe tech for some reason.

If you want a language where const is the default and mutable is a keyword, try F# for starters. I switched and never looked back.

replies(19): >>45767880 #>>45767882 #>>45767891 #>>45767892 #>>45767898 #>>45767926 #>>45767975 #>>45767989 #>>45768118 #>>45768188 #>>45768230 #>>45769840 #>>45769875 #>>45770104 #>>45770306 #>>45771134 #>>45771926 #>>45772136 #>>45775848 #
tasn ◴[31 Oct 25 03:05 UTC] No.45767898[source]▶
Functional programming languages (almost always?) come with the baggage of foreign looking syntax. Additionally, imperative is easier in some situations, so having that escape hatch is great.

I think that's why we're seeing a lot of what you're describing. E.g. with Rust you end up writing mostly functional code with a bit of imperative mixed in.

Additional, most software is not pure (human input, disk, network, etc), so a pure first approach ends up being weird for many people.

At least based on my experience.

replies(7): >>45767931 #>>45768098 #>>45768136 #>>45769309 #>>45770165 #>>45771129 #>>45772143 #
gf000 ◴[31 Oct 25 09:53 UTC] No.45770165[source]▶
Foreign looking is just a person's biases/experience. C is just as foreign looking to a layperson, you just happened to start programming with C-family languages. (Also, as a "gotcha" counterpoint, I can just look up a Haskell symbol in hoogle, but the only language that needs a website to decipher its gibberish type notation is C https://cdecl.org/ )

Nonetheless, I also heavily dislike non-alphabetical, library-defined symbols (with the exception of math operators), but this is a cheap argument and I don't think this is the primary reason FPs are not more prevalent.

replies(1): >>45772360 #
1. acdha ◴[31 Oct 25 14:30 UTC] No.45772360[source]▶
I think you could construct a stronger version of this complaint as FP languages not prioritizing usability enough. C was never seen as a great language but it was relatively simple to learn to the point that you could have running code doing something you needed without getting hit with a ton of theory first. That code would probably be unsafe in some way but the first impression of “I made a machine do something useful!” carries a lot of weight and anyone not starting with an academic CS background would get that rush faster with most mainstream languages.