3 ms·

Aside: Why do we use the terms "mutable" and "immutable" to describe those concepts? I feel they are needlessly hard to say and too easily confused when reading

Aside: Why do we use the terms "mutable" and "immutable" to describe those concepts? I feel they are needlessly hard to say and too easily confused when reading and writing. I say "read-write" or "writable" and "writability" for "mutable" and "mutability", and "read-only" and "read-only-ness" for "immutable" and "immutability". Typically, I make exceptions only when the language has multiple similar immutability-like concepts for which the precise terms are the only real option to avoid confusion.

Waterluvian 10mo ago
Same reason doors say PUSH and PULL instead of PUSH and YANK. We enjoy watching people faceplant into doors... er... it's not a sufficiently real problem to compel people to start doing something differently.
afandian 10mo ago
"read-only-ness" is much more of a mouthful than "immutable"! Generally immutability is also a programming style that comes with language constructs and efficient data structures. Whereas 'read-only' (to me) is just a way of describing a variable or object.
forty 10mo ago
Read only does not carry (to me) the fact that something cannot change, just that I cannot make it change. For example you could make a read only facade to a mutable object, that would not make it immutable.
iLemming 10mo ago
> Why do we use the terms "mutable" and "immutable" to describe those concepts? Mutable is from Latin 'mutabilis' - (changeable), which derives from 'mutare' (to change) You can't call them read-only/writable/etc. without confusing them with access permissions. 'Read-only' typically means something read-only to local scope, but the underlying object might still be mutable and changed elsewhere - like a const pointer in C++ or a read-only db view that prevents you from writing, but the underlying data can still be changed by others. In contrast, an immutable string (in java, c#) cannot be changed by anyone, ever. Computer science is a branch of mathematics, you can't just use whatever words you think more comfortable to you - names have implications, they are a form of theorem-stating. It's like not letting kids call multiplication a "stick-piling". We don't do that for reasons.

Waterluvian 10mo ago

Same reason doors say PUSH and PULL instead of PUSH and YANK. We enjoy watching people faceplant into doors... er... it's not a sufficiently real problem to compel people to start doing something differently.

afandian 10mo ago

"read-only-ness" is much more of a mouthful than "immutable"! Generally immutability is also a programming style that comes with language constructs and efficient data structures. Whereas 'read-only' (to me) is just a way of describing a variable or object.

forty 10mo ago

Read only does not carry (to me) the fact that something cannot change, just that I cannot make it change. For example you could make a read only facade to a mutable object, that would not make it immutable.

iLemming 10mo ago

> Why do we use the terms "mutable" and "immutable" to describe those concepts? Mutable is from Latin 'mutabilis' - (changeable), which derives from 'mutare' (to change) You can't call them read-only/writable/etc. without confusing them with access permissions. 'Read-only' typically means something read-only to local scope, but the underlying object might still be mutable and changed elsewhere - like a const pointer in C++ or a read-only db view that prevents you from writing, but the underlying data can still be changed by others. In contrast, an immutable string (in java, c#) cannot be changed by anyone, ever. Computer science is a branch of mathematics, you can't just use whatever words you think more comfortable to you - names have implications, they are a form of theorem-stating. It's like not letting kids call multiplication a "stick-piling". We don't do that for reasons.