3 ms·
> You can freely modify values received from other functions without fear of screwing things up further up the chain Thats a neat way of putting it, that it so
by runT1ME 16y ago
> You can freely modify values received from other functions without fear of screwing things up further up the chain
Thats a neat way of putting it, that it sort of makes the collection 'const'. I'll have to ponder how many bugs/problems are due to that type of error, and if its worth the small performance hit of not using arrays.
I'm not sure I'm quite convinced the trade offs are worth it, but considering it further now.
- swannodette 16y agoThis also means that you can operate on these data structures with multiple threads. Depending on the number of CPUs you have and the problem domain, you could very well operate more quickly (and safely!) on your data then with mutable data structures.
- runT1ME 16y agoAre you sure? I mean, from what I understand, a linked-list is an 'immutable structure' (in the sense that once a pointer is set, it can never be changed, but it CAN go from empty to something). But, I don't think any old linked list can be safely read and modified from a multithreaded environment without threading issues...