[DaiPlusPlus]

> I'll admit that I have a glaring experience gap with .NET languages, so I can't honestly say anything about C# and F#.

C#/.NET comes with language-level mutexes (`lock`) and the .NET library has thread-safe generic collections (ConcurrentDictionary, ConcurrentBag) and true immutable collections (ImmutableArray, ImmutableList, ImmutableDictionary) with optimized copy operations (e.g. ImmutableList.Add is O(1), but ImmutableArray.Add is O(n)). It's a nice addition to the library with only a few warts.

[ragnese]

That's good to hear.

Java/Kotlin also have mutexes- just not as language built-ins (well, it does have `synchronized`).

They also have a ConcurrentFoo set of collections as well. And actually an ImmutableMap (but I don't see ImmutableList, etc. Why?).

The "problem" is that they're opt-in.

I spent years writing multi-threaded C++. But I've become very spoiled with modern languages that make concurrency safe(r)-by-default, such as Rust, Clojure, and Elixir (I haven't actually used concurrent Haskell).

Honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as it used to be. The ecosystem(s) have embraced immutability everywhere that it's possible, so you don't have to worry quite as much about accidents.

[DaiPlusPlus]

> but I don't see ImmutableList, etc. Why

.NET doesn't have an ImmutableList either (the ImmutableBag type is an unordered collection). This is because unlike with hash-tables you always need to lock the entire structure when mutating a List/Vector (with hashtables you only need to lock the specific bin/bucket).

[ragnese]

Ah! Good point.