On Jun 7, 3:19 pm, Arved Sandstrom <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > > Arved Sandstrom wrote: > >> Jon Harrop wrote: > >>> I see no problem with mutable shared state. > >> In which case, Jon, you're in a small minority. > > > No. Most programmers still care about performance and performance means > > mutable state. > > Quite apart from performance and mutable state, I believe we were > talking about mutable _shared_ state. And this is something that gets a > _lot_ of people into trouble. >
Mutable shared state gets _bad_ (err.. perhaps "inexperienced" would be a better adjective) programmers - who don't know what they are doing - in trouble. There are many problem domains that either benefit greatly from mutable shared states or can't [easily] be done without them. Unified memory management being an obvious example... there are many more. Unshared state has its place. Immutable state has its place. Shared immutable state has its place. Shared mutable place has its place. Jeff M. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
