[tremon]

How does this work out for functions in the middle of the call stack? Can the objects a function creates be mutated by functions they call? Phrased differently, can functions modify their input parameters? If a function returns one of their input parameters (modified or not), does that mean the calling function can no longer mutate it?

Maybe I'm discarding this too readily, but I don't think this idea of "local mutability" has much value -- if an object is mutable, the compiler and runtime has to support mutation and many optimizations are impossible because every object is mutable somewhere during their lifetime (and for objects created in main, they're mutable for the lifetime of the program).

[jerf]

If we include as a axiom for the purposes of this conversation that we must be able to refactor out any part of the "constructor" and that the refactored function must have the same mutation "privileges" as the original creator, which I think is fairly reasonable, this leads you in the direction of something like Rust I think, which can construct objects and lend bits and pieces of it out in a controlled manner to auxiliary functions, but the value being returned can still have constraints on it.

[chowells]

Local mutability is fantastic and practical... In a language like Haskell where the type system tracks exactly what values are mutable and all mutation is precisely scoped by functions that freeze the value they generate in a way that prevents leaking.

In a language that isn't so precise, it's a lot harder to get value from the idea.

[Tainnor]

You can get value out of local mutability in languages like Scala or Kotlin. Variables can be declared mutable in the scope of a function, and their value can then later be assigned to a non-mutable variable, for example. Collections also come in mutable and immutable variants (although this has some pitfalls in Kotlin).

[williamdclt]

I have to say I don’t understand your point! The parents comment is both clear and a reasonable, common approach of programming

> Can the objects a function creates be mutated by functions they call?

No

> can functions modify their input parameters?

No

> If a function returns one of their input parameters (modified or not), does that mean the calling function can no longer mutate it?

No. Because the called function isn’t allowed to mutate its inputs, there’s no problem for the caller to mutate it. It’s irrelevant whether the input was also an output of the called function as it cannot mutate it anyway.

I suppose you can get into race conditions between caller and callee if your language provides asynchronicity and no further immutability guarantees. Still, you eliminated a whole lot of potential bugs

[taeric]

I mean, this isn't that different from any number of things you do in real life? You took a car to some destination. It is assumed you didn't change the engine. Took it to a mechanic, maybe they did?

More, many modifications are flat out expected. You filled out a job application, you probably don't expect to change the job it is for. But you do expect that you can fill out your pieces, such that it is a modifiable document while you have it. (Back to the car example, it is expected that you used fuel and caused wear on the tires.)

As annoying as they were to deal with, the idea of having "frozen" objects actually fits really well with how many people want to think of things. You open it to get it ready for use. This will involve a fair bit of a setup. When done, you expect that you can freeze those and pass off to something else.

Transactions can also get into this. Not surprising, as they are part of the vocabulary we have built on how to deal with modifications. Same for synchronization and plenty of other terms. None of them go away if you just choose to use immutable objects.