[titzer]

I think the main issue in C++ isn't value semantics, it's deep copy semantics. E.g. in a functional language ADTs are immutable and don't have identity. They can be freely copied, or not, passed by reference or by value, but they are never deep copied. Comparison may be deep, but not passing them.

That is to say, I think I mostly am agreeing with you. In Java, objects are always passed by reference, never by value, and never implicitly copied. But Java doesn't have any value types other than primitives. When I added ADTs to Virgil, I wanted to get the best of both worlds; objects are pass by reference, like Java, and ADTs are immutable, identity-less, so they are deep compared but never deep copied. (ADTs in Virgil can also sometimes be flattened, so they don't necessarily result in heap allocation).

[cbsmith]

In a functional language, you don't have to worry about bits of code mutating your data. ;-) On the flip side, there's a lot of cognitive load that comes with functional languages, so while they do address the problem neatly...

I'd have to take a look at Virgil to appreciate your approach, but I'm always leery of implicit value vs. reference semantics tied to types (aside from the whole array fiasco, easily the ugliest part of Java's type system). So often the particular semantics you want are driven by the context of what you're doing, rather than the what you're doing it with.

[nyanpasu64]

I still don't see why value structs need to be immutable; ints are mutable in all languages, and structs are mutable in C, C++, and Rust (if you `let mut`) and it's a feature of the language.