[ekipan]

Mutability is distinct from variability. In Javascript only because it's a pretty widely known syntax:

    const f = (x) => {
      const y = x + 1;
      return y + 1;
    }

y is an immutable variable. In f(3), y is 4, and in f(7), y is 8.

I've only glanced at this Zen-C thing but I presume it's the same story.

[Deanoumean]

"immutable variable" is an oxymoron. Just because Javascript did it does not mean every new language has to do it the same way.

[throwaway17_17]

There are two distinct constructs that are referred to using the name variable in computer science:

1) A ‘variable’ is an identifier which is bound to a fixed value by a definition;

2) a ‘variable’ is a memory location, or a higher level approximation abstracting over memory locations, which is set to and may be changed to a value by an assignment;

Both of the above are acceptable uses of the word. I am of the mindset that the non-independent existence of these two meanings in both languages and in discourse are a large and fundamental problem.

I take the position that, inspired by mathematics, a variable should mean #1. Thereby making variables immutably bound to a fixed value. Meaning #2 should have some other name and require explicit use thereof.

From the PLT and Maths background, a mutable variable is somewhat oxymoronic. So, I agree let’s not copy JavaScript, but let’s also not be dismissive of the usage of terminology that has long standing meanings (even when the varied meanings of a single term are quite opposite).

[antonvs]

“Immutable” and “variable” generally refers to two different aspects of a variable’s lifetime, and they’re compatible with each other.

In a function f(x), x is a variable because each time f is invoked, a different value can be provided for x. But that variable can be immutable within the body of the function. That’s what’s usually being referred to by “immutable variable”.

This terminology is used across many different languages, and has nothing to do with Javascript specifically. For example, it’s common to describe pure functional languages by saying something like “all variables are immutable” (https://wiki.haskell.org/A_brief_introduction_to_Haskell).

[psychoslave]

Probably variable is initially coming out of an ellipsis for something like "(possibly) variable* value stored in some dedicated memory location". Probably holder, keeper* or warden would make a more accurate terms using ordinary parlance. Or to be very on point and dropping the ordinariness, there is mneme[1] or mnemon[2].

Good luck propagating ideas, as sound as it might, to a general audience once something is established in some jargon.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mneme [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/mnemon

[antonvs]

> Probably variable is initially coming out of an ellipsis for something like "(possibly) variable* value stored in some dedicated memory location".

No, the term came directly from mathematics, where it had been firmly established by 1700 by people like Fermat, Newton, and Leibniz.

The confusion was introduced when programming languages decided to allow a variable's value to vary not just when a function was called, but during the evaluation of a function. This then creates the need to distinguish between a variable whose value doesn't change during any single evaluation of a function, and one that does change.

As I mentioned, the terms apply to two different aspects of the variable lifecycle, and that's implicitly understood. Saying it's an "oxymoron" is a version of the etymological fallacy that's ignoring the defined meanings of terms.

[esrauch]

I think you are confused by terminology here and not by behavior, "immutable variable" is a normal terminology in all languages and could be says to be distinct from constants.

In Rust if you define with "let x = 1;" it's an immutable variable, and same with Kotlin "val x = 1;"

[psychoslave]

Lore and custom made "immutable variable" some kind of frequent idiomatic parlance, but it’s still an oxymoron in their general accepted isolated meanings.

Neither "let" nor "val[ue]" implies constancy or vacillation in themselves without further context.

[esrauch]

Words only have the meaning we give them, and "variable" already has this meaning from mathematics in the sense of x+1=2, x is a variable.

Euler used this terminology, it's not new fangled corruption or anything. I'm not sure it makes too much sense to argue they new languages should use a different terminology than this based on a colloquial/nontechnical interpretation of the word.

[psychoslave]

I get your point on how the words meanings evolves.

Also it’s fine that anyone name things as it comes to their mind — as long as the other side get what is meant at least, I guess.

On the other it doesn’t hurt much anyone to call an oxymoron thus, or exchange in vacuous manner about terminology or its evolution.

On the specific example you give, I’m not an expert, but it seems dubious to me. In x+1=2, terms like x are called unknowns. Prove me wrong, but I would rather bet that Euler used unknown (quantitas incognita) unless he was specifically discussing variable quantities (quantitas variabilis) to describe, well, quantities that change. Probably he used also French and German equivalents, but if Euler spoke any English that’s not reflected in his publications.

[SetTheorist]

"Damit wird insbesondere zu der interessanten Aufgabe, eine quadratische Gleichung beliebig vieler Variabeln mit algebraischen Zahlencoeffizienten in solchen ganzen oder gebrochenen Zahlen zu lösen, die in dem durch die Coefficienten bestimmten algebraischen Rationalitätsbereiche gelegen sind." - Hilbert, 1900

The use of "variable" to denote an "unknown" is a very old practice that predates computers and programming languages.

[ekipan]

Haskell, then.

    f x = let y = x + 1 in y + 1

Same deal. In (f 3), y = 4, in (f 7), y = 8. y varies but cannot mutate. Should be a true enough Scottsman.