|
|
|
|
|
|
by elric
638 days ago
|
|
|
Not sure why you're coming across so aggressively. Orders of magnitude slower? Citation needed. I don't think I've ever encountered any performance problems caused by immutability in anything I've worked on. But as always, there are tradeoffs, and if there's a bottleneck then it can be addressed when identified. > The single greatest predictor of defects for every single language ever is “lines of code”. Did you hallucinate whatever you think you replied to? At no point did I mention LoC. I mentioned simplicity. Two very different things. |
|
|
You are reading aggression in based on the fact that I am disagreeing with you. It is text over the internet. Whatever tone you are gathering is purely imagined. I would suggest you visit fewer circle jerk areas and discuss things. People telling you you’re wrong and why is not aggression.
>source
I mean. I assume you’re a developer as you have a strong opinion on immutability. So just test it? It isn’t as if testing the impacts of immutability of performance is a difficult thing to test out.
It is actually difficult to find results because functional programmers have flooded the internet with “yes performance is impacted, but performance doesn’t matter. Performance is a premature optimization”
Nevertheless, even with things smaller than a register, performance is impacted here:
https://product.hubspot.com/blog/immutability-and-performanc...
By several X. Now get it objects that are larger than a register with numerous stack blowing deep copies and the effects are massively more pronounced.
The fastest Haskell game engine looks like PlayStation 2 on modern hardware.
I mean. That immutability massively hurts performance is not a point of contention, even among immutability fanboys.
>did you hallucinate
I think you forgot your own post. You stated that CoW is trivial and I gave you a specific reason as to why that claim is a lie.