4 ms·
> But mm... why you would want to mutable state like current directory in first place? Or even mutable filesystem? Why aren't those just immutable parameters of
by adwn 8y ago
> But mm... why you would want to mutable state like current directory in first place? Or even mutable filesystem? Why aren't those just immutable parameters of your program?
Because that's how just about any OS, application, library, filesystem, device driver, database, nearly everything related to computing at all, works. Reinventing the universe has never, ever lead to success. If you want even the slightest hope for non-negligible adoption of your operating system, you need to be able to interface with the rest of the world. And that's why you don't want the filesystem to be an "immuatble parameter of your program".
- Risord 8y agoYou can still build compatibility layer on top of immutable FS. Like being mutable from program(s) perspective while being able to control how these changes are capsulated from rest of the system. You could, for example, see what your > any OS, application, library, filesystem, device driver, database, nearly everything related to computing at all -is trying to actually do to your files and operation like reverting changes is trivial. Sure it's not performance optimal and effects what kind of software is ideal to work within such a system. It's just a different approach with different trade-offs. Anyway if I one day want to build new OS it's for trying different interesting approaches and not yet another 'successful any-OS'.
- techntoke 8y agoRIP Terry Davis