3 ms·

Sorry, that might have come off a bit harsh. I was just trying to make the point that Object.freeze doesn't give you nearly 99.9995%, nor even 95%, of what immu

Sorry, that might have come off a bit harsh. I was just trying to make the point that Object.freeze doesn't give you nearly 99.9995%, nor even 95%, of what immutable data structures give you. I don't think the apps I'm working on are particularly complex, but if you're using a Flux architecture with something like React/Redux, this is a very common pattern, and it doesn't take long to get to a point where the gains in performance and usability far outweigh the cost of having a dependency. > While it is a little bit of a pain almost every framework and probably half of the libraries in existence on npm have a copy function. The problem isn't just the usability of the copy operation (and even if it were, you still have the performance issue); there is also the problem of JavaScript not enforcing immutability of nested objects with Object.freeze. So if you want to enforce that, you're going to have to call Object.freeze on every child object, which becomes a nightmare to write and maintain.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> I was just trying to make the point that Object.freeze doesn't give you nearly 99.9995%, nor even 95%, of what immutable data structures give you. Sure. That's why I made sure to say it'll give you 99% of what you want. Not 99% of immutable data structure capabilities :). Though I'm sure folks may disagree with what I'm suggesting they "want" but I do not believe it's a good pattern to follow where a complex object needs to be immutable in JavaScript. > JavaScript not enforcing immutability of nested objects with Object.freeze. So if you want to enforce that, you're going to have to call Object.freeze on every child object, which becomes a nightmare to write and maintain. Which is why you should never ever do that. It's a bad pattern in a dynamic language to try and make complex structures completely immutable. It's best to simply find alternative ways of accessing them if you do not want to expose it to modification.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

> I was just trying to make the point that Object.freeze doesn't give you nearly 99.9995%, nor even 95%, of what immutable data structures give you. Sure. That's why I made sure to say it'll give you 99% of what you want. Not 99% of immutable data structure capabilities :). Though I'm sure folks may disagree with what I'm suggesting they "want" but I do not believe it's a good pattern to follow where a complex object needs to be immutable in JavaScript. > JavaScript not enforcing immutability of nested objects with Object.freeze. So if you want to enforce that, you're going to have to call Object.freeze on every child object, which becomes a nightmare to write and maintain. Which is why you should never ever do that. It's a bad pattern in a dynamic language to try and make complex structures completely immutable. It's best to simply find alternative ways of accessing them if you do not want to expose it to modification.