4 ms·

> At some level of software complexity, programmers MUST start to organize data into composite objects. I don't understand this point. All functional programmi

> At some level of software complexity, programmers MUST start to organize data into composite objects. I don't understand this point. All functional programming languages have algebraic data types and records, which are composite types. If this is not a "composite object", you'll have to clarify what you mean. > Copying memory around to enable to facilitate these immutable structures is SLOW. Slower than what and in what context? Append-only logs in relational databases are immutable data structures, and they enable multiversion concurrency control, which is faster and more scalable than locking when there's lots of contention. Unqualified claims like "immutable data structures are slow" is just wrong.

jayd16 4y ago
Why have immutable data structures not taken over in the general case if it's a strict improvement? Sometimes they're good and sometimes there not. The issue is functional programming needs them to be used in every case. Personally I'm of the opinion that purity is impossible so if a paradigm needs purity it's going to be an uphill battle.
- christophilus 4y ago
  FP doesn’t require their use in every case. For example, Clojure allows mutation as an optimization. But for the normal path, immutable data structures are just fine and help avoid a whole host of bugs.
  - yencabulator 4y ago
    I'd argue that means Clojure lets you use paradigms other than FP. FP is still FP.
gurjeet 4y ago
Note: the log (aka write-ahead-log) in Postgres, and its ilk, enables the D(urability) of ACID. MVCC in Postgres is implemented by storing the visibility info of each row in the row-header (search: xmin, xmax). Some commercial RDBMSs do use their logs for MVCC, though.
Izkata 4y ago
> I don't understand this point. All functional programming languages have algebraic data types and records, which are composite types. If this is not a "composite object", you'll have to clarify what you mean. I think they meant data structures, not data types. Things like lists of records that each contain further records.
- naasking 4y ago
  Data types like records and algebraic types are data structures. Here's an algebraic type for polymorphic lists: type 'a list = Nil | Cons of 'a
- deltaonenine 4y ago
  You and the other person don't understand. All data structures have types. EVEN lists of records that each contain further records. A type or a data structure is an orthogonal concept to FP, because types exist in imperative programming and data structures also exist in FP.

jayd16 4y ago

Why have immutable data structures not taken over in the general case if it's a strict improvement? Sometimes they're good and sometimes there not. The issue is functional programming needs them to be used in every case. Personally I'm of the opinion that purity is impossible so if a paradigm needs purity it's going to be an uphill battle.

christophilus 4y ago
FP doesn’t require their use in every case. For example, Clojure allows mutation as an optimization. But for the normal path, immutable data structures are just fine and help avoid a whole host of bugs.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  I'd argue that means Clojure lets you use paradigms other than FP. FP is still FP.

gurjeet 4y ago

Note: the log (aka write-ahead-log) in Postgres, and its ilk, enables the D(urability) of ACID. MVCC in Postgres is implemented by storing the visibility info of each row in the row-header (search: xmin, xmax). Some commercial RDBMSs do use their logs for MVCC, though.

Izkata 4y ago

> I don't understand this point. All functional programming languages have algebraic data types and records, which are composite types. If this is not a "composite object", you'll have to clarify what you mean. I think they meant data structures, not data types. Things like lists of records that each contain further records.

naasking 4y ago
Data types like records and algebraic types are data structures. Here's an algebraic type for polymorphic lists: type 'a list = Nil | Cons of 'a
deltaonenine 4y ago
You and the other person don't understand. All data structures have types. EVEN lists of records that each contain further records. A type or a data structure is an orthogonal concept to FP, because types exist in imperative programming and data structures also exist in FP.