←back to thread

John Carmack on mutable variables

(twitter.com)
498 points azhenley | 2 comments | 31 Oct 25 02:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.746s | source
Show context
EastLondonCoder ◴[31 Oct 25 09:30 UTC] No.45770007[source]▶
After a 2 year Clojure stint I find it very hard to explain the clarity that comes with immutability for programmers used to trigger effects with a mutation.

I think it may be one of those things you have to see in order to understand.

replies(17): >>45770035 #>>45770426 #>>45770485 #>>45770884 #>>45770924 #>>45771438 #>>45771558 #>>45771722 #>>45772048 #>>45772446 #>>45773479 #>>45775905 #>>45777189 #>>45779458 #>>45780612 #>>45780778 #>>45781186 #
zelphirkalt ◴[31 Oct 25 12:49 UTC] No.45771438[source]▶
Made a similar experience with Scheme. I could tell people whatever I wanted, they wouldn't really realize how much cleaner and easier to test things could be, if we just used functions instead of mutating things around. And since I was the only one who had done projects in an FP language, and they only used non-FP languages like Java, Python, JavaScript and TypeScript before, they would continue to write things based on needless mutation. The issue was also, that using Python it can be hard to write functional style code in a readable way too. Even JS seems to lend itself better to that. What's more is, that one will probably find oneself hard pressed to find the functional data structures one might want to use and needs to work around recursion due to the limitations of those languages.

I think it's simply the difference between the curious mind, who explores stuff like Clojure off the job (or is very lucky to get a Clojure job) and the 9 to 5 worker, who doesn't know any better and has never experienced writing a FP codebase.

replies(3): >>45775382 #>>45780631 #>>45786721 #
1. DemocracyFTW2 ◴[01 Nov 25 10:39 UTC] No.45780631[source]▶
I'm really afraid that the weak point of the argument is really Scheme having a Lisp syntax. One might say syntax is the most superficial thing about a language but as a matter of fact it's the mud pool in front of the property where everybody's wheels get stuck and they feel their only option is to go into reverse and maybe try another day, or never. The same happens with APL; sure it's a genius who invented it and tic-tac-toe in a single short line of code is cool—doesn't mean many people get over the syntax.

FWIW I believe that JS for one would greatly benefit from much better support for immutable data, including time- and space-efficient ways to produce modified copies of structured data (like you don't think twice when you do `string.replace(...)` where you do in fact produce a copy; `list.push(...)` could conceivable operate similarly).

replies(1): >>45785576 #
2. zelphirkalt ◴[01 Nov 25 21:29 UTC] No.45785576[source]▶
Doesn't even have to be true copies. Structural sharing is a thing, that enables many or most functional data structures and avoids excessive memory usage. I agree with your point, and it would put JS higher in my liked languages list.