Side-effect free containers for E

[Tyler Close]

Ken Kahn wrote:
> Consider an expert E programmer who is always careful to
> avoid "accidents"
> like this. He or she would probably be glad that MarkM
> "pushed others over a
> cliff" because he/she has a simpler library to deal with
> since similar
> objects share much of their protocol. The learning and
> cognitive load are
> lower as things now stand. Also he/she might appreciate how
> easy it is to
> switch between the mutable and immutable containers.

I think the learning and cognitive load would actually be lower after
the switch to immutable containers. Instead of two very different
classes that had confusingly similar protocols, you would only have
one class. One is less than two. Moreover, there are no differences to
remember when there is only one. Also, instead of having to repeatedly
do an "easy" switch, there would be no switch to do. Nothing is easier
than something.

In short, the library would be simpler after this change.

I'm surprised to hear this argument from you since I understood from
Markm that you were the first to think of the backward diff technique
for implementing immutable hashtables. Are you making this argument
based on experience you gained while working with immutable
hashtables? If so, please elaborate.

Tyler


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com