> And at the same time you're saying its value comes from mutability but then saying that it's better to rewrite it? You do realize that "mutability" means "ab

> And at the same time you're saying its value comes from mutability but then saying that it's better to rewrite it? You do realize that "mutability" means "ability to be changed", correct? It's value comes from being able to be rewritten piecemeal, as opposed to hardware where you'd have to design a new PCB, manufacture it, then snail-mail it to all the places it should be, then install it. >> so the vast majority of software will break due to changing requirements or dependencies > This also depends. Exhaustive testing for the sake of testing is not good, but a good test suite that exerts the overall functionality of your software is almost always good and allows for much faster iteration down the line and pays itself in a short amount of time or iteration cycles. What you said literally had nothing to do with that except you quoted from my comment.