Case against OOP is understated, not overstated (2020)

Re:Case against OOP is understated, not overstated (2020) by hota_mazi on Friday February 11, 2022 @12:15AM (#30297307)

I used to think that the solution to mutable state was to prohibit it and code with immutable structures all the time, but after a few years of Rust, I think it's the wrong approach.

The right way to handle mutable state is not to pretend it doesn't exist but to accept it as a reality of complex systems and to encode its management in the type system of the language. And that's exactly what Rust does.

With Rust, I no longer feel dirty whenever I have mutable state and I trust Rust to not just keep my code bug free but also to make me think carefully about mutable state and how to design my code with it in mind.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Case against OOP is understated, not overstated (2020) by zozbot234 on Friday February 11, 2022 @06:31AM (#30300175)

Rust prohibits shared mutable state as part of the basic language (or rather its 'safe' subset), relegating it to special-cased "interior mutability" constructs. This is essentially "as immutable as you can get" in a low-level, systems programming language. (Other languages can thread state mutations explicitly as part of a generally "immutable" design, but that doesn't give you support for the expected low-level features, so instead it's part of the language in Rust.)

[ Parent | on HN ]