John Carmack on mutable variables

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.

I think the advantage is often oversold and people often miss how things actually exist on a continuum and just plainly opposing mutable and immutable is sidestepping a lot of complexity.

For exemple, it's endlessly amusing to me to see all the efforts the Haskell community does to basically reinvent mutability in a way which is somehow palatable to their type system. Sometimes they even fail to even realise that it's what they are doing.

In the end, the goal is always the same: better control and warranties about the impact of side effects with minimum fuss. Carmack approach here is sensible. You want practices which make things easy to debug and reason about while mainting flexibility where it makes sense like iterative calculations.

> Sometimes they even fail to even realise that it's what they are doing.

Because that’s not what they’re doing. They’re isolating state in a systemic, predictable way.

Lenses is mutation by another name. You are basically recreating states on top of an immutable system. Sure, it's all immutable actually but conceptually it doesn't really change anything. That's what makes it hilarious.

In the end, the world is stateful and even the purest abstractions have to hit the road at some point. But the authors of Haskell were fully aware of that. The monadic type system was conceived as a way to easily track side effects after all, not banish them.

But there isn’t anything hilarious about that.

It’s a clear-minded and deliberate approach to reconciling principle with pragmatic utility. We can debate whether it’s the best approach, but it isn’t like… logically inconsistent, surprising, or lacking in self awareness.

You might also think of it a bit like poetry: creativity emerging from the process of working within formal constraints. By asking how you can represent something familiar in a specially structured way, you can learn both about that structure and the thing you're trying to unite with it. Occasionally, you'll even create something beautiful or powerful, as well.

Maybe in that sense there's an "artificial" challenge involved, but it's artificial in the sense of being deliberate rather than merely arbitrary or absurd.