On 24/04/2009, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > With small objects like this, it is generally a very clear win to have > immutable objects. > > With larger matrix and vector objects, the advantage is not so clear. It is > often very nice to mutate large matrices in place via views. This usually > happens in the context of a single class such as a decomposition method so a > fruitful approach often is to allow a programmer to make a mutable copy that > is manipulated for a while destructively and then marked as immutable when > it is exposed to the outside world.
How does that work? Do threads have to get a shared read-lock or exclusive write-lock on the object? > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Eric Bowman <ebow...@boboco.ie> wrote: > > > luc.maison...@free.fr wrote: > > > The points above are not theoretical one. Vector3D was mutable and it > > > cost us weeks of works at that time to track difficult bugs in a > > > > complex application. ... > > > > > +1 > > > > The cognitive overhead of dealing with the possibility of side effects > > is a serious brain drain, particularly on such a fundamental atom. > > Embrace immutability, and rejoice. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
