On Monday, 5 March 2018 at 10:57:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Here's something I wrote up on const:
http://jmdavisprog.com/articles/why-const-sucks.html
I suppose that it's not exactly the most positive article, but
I feel that it's accurate.
- Jonathan M Davis
Its amazing how typed languages, in this case const, forces you
to think in mutation but with an exception. I wonder the real
world SOLE benefit of using const compared to mutable-immutable
style. Its either mutable or immutable. Exception could only
available by casting immutable to mutable.
I feels this const thing is a theoretical problem. One can
overcome practically with code style discipline. At a point,
const becomes just a decoration; something people use prematurely
(YAGNI).
It must feel like sleeping on your bed with sharp knives hanging
at the top such that they can fall on you anything: when
comparing code in a typed language to an untyped one. That's a
potential cause of premature use of certain type attributes.
By the way, Jonathan, you should really consider writing a book
with such deep insights your have. Especially the way you explain
things.
