[flagged]
John Carmack on mutable variables
11–20 of 663 posts
Re: John Carmack on mutable variables
#12How fast this got to the top, you would think John Carmack just invented nuclear fusion.
Re: John Carmack on mutable variables
#13Why loops specifically? Why not conditionals?
A lot of code needs to assemble a result set based on if/then or switch statements. Maybe you could add those in each step of a chain of inline functions, but what if you need to skip some of that logic in certain cases? It's often much more readable to start off with a null result and put your (relatively functional) code inside if/then blocks to clearly show different logic for different cases.
Re: John Carmack on mutable variables
#14> 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…
I think it's because (I'm looking at Haskell in particular) there are a lot of great ideas implemented in them, but the purity makes writing practical or performant time-domain programs high friction. But you don't need both purity and the various tools they provide. You can use the tools without the pure-functions model.
In particular: My brain, my computing hardware, and my problems I solve with computers all feel like a better match for time-domain-focused programming.
Re: John Carmack on mutable variables
#15> 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…
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)…
[deleted]
Re: John Carmack on mutable variables
#16> 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…
Pure functional works great until it doesn't. For a lot of systems-y and performance-oriented code you need the escape hatches or you'll be in for a lot of pain and annoyance.
As a practical observation, I think it was easier to close this gap by adding substantial functional capabilities to imperative languages than the other way around. Historically, functional language communities were much more precious about the purity of their functional-ness than imperative languages were about their imperative-ness.
Re: John Carmack on mutable variables
#17> 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…
We are still living with the hangover of C, which was designed for the resource-starved machines of eons ago, and whose style later languages felt they had to copy to get any kind of adoption. (And as you point out, that is how things turned out.)
My bet is functional programming will become more and more prevalent as people figure out how to get AI-assisted coding to work reliably. For the very reasons you stated, functional principles make the code modular and easy to reason about, which works very well for LLMs.
However, precisely because functional programming languages are less popular and hence under-represented in the training data, AI might not work well with them and they will probably continue to remain fringe.
Re: John Carmack on mutable variables
#18[flagged]
Re: John Carmack on mutable variables
#19[flagged]
Eh, Rust is kind of "immutable by default" but not really enforcing that + "constants" in the way I think Carmack advocates for. Other languages does better in that regard. Examples: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...
Re: John Carmack on mutable variables
#20> I wish it was the default, and mutable was a keyword. I wish the IDE would simply provide a small clue, visible but graphically unobtrusive, that it was mutated . In fact, I end up wishing this about almost every language feature that passes my mind. For example, I don't need to choose whether I can or can't append to a list; just make it unappendable if you can prove I don't append. I don't care if it's a map, lis…
I don’t have any useful ideas here but if you make a linter for this sort of thing, I suggest calling it “mutalator.”