Hacker News Reader

Comment by StopDisinfo910 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

If you read through the Big Red Book¹ or its counterpart for Kotlin², it's quite explicit about the goals with these techniques for managing effects, and goes over rewriting imperative code to manage state in a "pure" way.

I think the authors are quite aware of the relationship between these techniques and mutable state! I imagine it's similar for other canonical functional programming texts.

Besides the "pure" functional languages like Haskell, there are languages that are sort of immutability-first (and support sophisticated effects libraries), or at least have good immutable collections libraries in the stdlib, but are flexible about mutation as well, so you can pick your poison: Scala, Clojure, Rust, Nim (and probably lots of others).

All of these go further and are more comfortable than just throwing `const` or `.freeze` around in languages that weren't designed with this style in mind. If you haven't tried them, you should! They're really pleasant to work with.

----

1: https://www.manning.com/books/functional-programming-in-scal...

2: https://www.manning.com/books/functional-programming-in-kotl...

> If you read through the Big Red Book

This is a thoughtful response, but I can't help but chuckle at a response that starts with, just read this book!.

For me, well-written books are an enjoyable way to learn, and I'll admit I'm partial to that!

But of course you can learn in whatever way you like. Books are just a convenient example to point to as an indicator of how implementers, enthusiasts, and educators working with these techniques make sense of them and compare them to mutating variables. They're easy to refer to because they're notable public artifacts.

Fwiw, there's also an audiobook of the Red Book. To really follow the important parts, you'll want to be reading and writing and running code, but you can definitely get a sense of the more basic philosophical orientation just listening along while doing chores or whatever. :)

> 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.

This is a fantastic way to put it, thank you for adding it!

You don’t see what’s hilarious about recreating what you are pretending to remove only one abstraction level removed?

Anyway, I have great hopes for effect system as a way to approach this in a principled way. I really like what Ocaml is currently doing with concurrency. It’s clear to me that there is great value to unlock here.

I don’t agree with your characterization that anyone is “pretending”. The whole point of abstraction is convenience of reasoning. No one is fooling themselves or anyone else, nor trying to. It’s a conscious choice, for clear purposes. That’s precisely as hilarious as using another abstraction you might favor more, such as an effect system.

>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.

That's because Haskell is a predominantly a research language originally intended for experimenting with new programming language ideas.

It should not be surprising that people use it to come up with or iterate on existing features.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com