I'm not familiar with that gimmick.
One thing I learned, for example, is do not access global immutable state from within a function. All inputs come through the parameters, all outputs through the parameters or the return value.
One thing I learned, for example, is do not access global immutable state from within a function. All inputs come through the parameters, all outputs through the parameters or the return value.
Would you access a global M_PI constant? Or another function name? Or would you require every dependency to passed through?
[1] i.e. a total capability based system.
The main issue comes in when you change (in the code! not as mutation!) the global immutable state and now you have to track down a bunch of usages. If it wasn't global, you could change it only in some local areas and not others.
You aren't likely to change M_PI to a new value (int 3 for performance?) so for pure constants, fine, global immutable state works. However many usages of global state are things like singletons, loggers and string messages that often eventually benefit from being passed in (i18n, testability etc.)
As to ergonomics, you can stuff all that global state into a single instance and have one more parameter that is passed around. It will still allow calls to eg change logging on their downstream functions much more easily than having singleton configuration.
For instance, you might be tempted to write a function that opens an HTTP connection, performs an API call, parses the result, and returns it. But you'll have a really hard time testing that function. If you decompose it into several tiny functions (one that opens a connection, one that accepts an open connection and performs the call, and one that parses the result), you'll have a much easier time testing it.
(This clicked for me when I wrote code as I've described, wrote tests for it, and later found several bugs. I realized my tests did nothing and failed to catch my bugs, because the code I'd written was impossible to test. In general, side effects and global state are the enemies of testability.)
You end up with functions that take a lot of arguments (10+), which can feel wrong at first, but it's worth it, and IDEs help enormously.
This pattern is called dependency injection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection
See also, the "functional core, imperative shell" pattern.
1. don't do console I/O in leaf functions. Instead, pass a parameter that's a "sink" for output, and let the caller decide what do with it. This helps a lot when converting a command line program to a gui program. It also makes it practical to unit test the function
2. don't allocate storage in a leaf function if the result is to be returned. Try to have storage allocated and free'd in the same function. It's a lot easier to keep track of it that way. Another use of sinks, output ranges, etc.
3. separate functions that do a read-only gathering of data, from functions that mutate the data
Give these a try. I bet you'll like the results!
It sounds like too many words to refer ro plain old inversion of control and CQRS. They're both tried and true techniques.
This actually supports your broader point about always passing state to functions, and never accessing it implicitly. Although I don't know that I agree with extending that to constants, but maybe with another several decades of experience under my belt I might come to.
Zig also makes it easy for 'constants' to change based on build-specific parameters, so a different value for testing, or providing an override value in the build script. I've found that to eliminate any problems I've had in the past with global constants. Sometimes, of course, it turns out you want those values to be runtime configurable, but as refactorings go that's a relatively straightforward one.
Having an allocator implicitly passed in with a struct argument is not quite what I meant. D once had allocators as member functions, but that wound up being deprecated because the allocation strategy is only rarely tied to the struct.
A global variable is a hidden extra parameter to every function that uses it. It's much easier if the set of things you have to care about is just those in the declared parameters, not the hidden globals.
For example, types can have long names, but that doesn't work with HN. Changing a declaration to have a different type then means you've got endless cascading identifiers that need to be redone. And so on.
This is actually a good thing, every mention of that identifier is a place that you might need to adapt for the new type. Hungarian notation is an excellent coping mechanism when you have to use compilers that don't do their own type checking - which used to be a huge issue when Hungarian notation was current.
1. you become reluctant to do it
2. lots of diffs cluttering up your git history. I like my git history to be fairly narrowly targeted.
I don't use languages that don't do type checking. Microsoft uses Hungarian notation on their C interface and example code.