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.

Reply via email to