• frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s only a const within a function. You can pass the value to another function and changing it as it’s passed. For example:

      const int foo = 1
      other_func( foo + 1)
      

      In functional programming, you tend to keep track of state on the stack like this.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          Keeping state managed. The data for the function will be very predictable. This is especially important when it comes to multithreading. You can’t have a race condition where two things update the same data when they never update it that way at all.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Rather than me coming up with an elaborate and contrived example, I suggest giving a language like Elixir a try. It tends to force you into thinking in terms of immutability. Bit of a learning curve if you’re not used to it, but it just takes practice.

              • madcaesar@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Ok how about this then, I frequently do something like this:

                let className = 'btn'
                  if (displayType) {
                    className += ` ${displayType}`
                  }
                  if (size) {
                    className += ` ${size}`
                  }
                  if (bordered) {
                    className += ' border'
                  }
                  if (classNameProp) {
                    className += ` ${classNameProp}`
                  }
                

                How would this be made better with a functional approach? And would be more legible, better in anyway?

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  I’d say this example doesn’t fully show off what immutable data can do–it tends to help as things scale up to much larger code–but here’s how I might do it in JS.

                  function generate_class_name( display_type, size, bordered, class_name_prop ) 
                  {
                    classes = [
                        'btn',
                        ( display_type ? display_type : [] ),
                        ( size ? size : [] ),
                        ( bordered ? bordered : [] ),
                        ( class_name_prop ? class_name_prop : [] ),
                    ];
                  
                    return classes.flat().join( " " );
                  }
                  
                  console.log( "<"
                      + generate_class_name( "mobile", "big", null, null )
                      + ">" );
                  console.log( "<"
                      + generate_class_name( "desktop", "small", "solid", "my-class" ) 
                      + ">" );
                  console.log( "<"
                      + generate_class_name( null, "medium", null, null ) 
                      + ">" );
                  

                  Results:

                  <btn mobile big>
                  <btn desktop small solid my-class>
                  <btn medium>
                  

                  Notice that JavaScript has a bit of the immutability idea built in here. The Array.flat() returns a new array with flattened elements. That means we can chain the call to Array.join( " " ). The classes array is never modified, and we could keep using it as it was. Unfortunately, JavaScript doesn’t always do that; push() and pop() modify the array in place.

                  This particular example would show off its power a little more if there wasn’t that initial btn class always there. Then you would end up with a leading space in your example, but handling it as an array this way avoids the problem.

                  • madcaesar@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Very interesting. Actually the part you mention about there being an initial 'btn' class is a good point. Using arrays and joining would be nice for that. I wish more people would chime in. Because between our two examples, I think mine is more readable. But yours would probably scale better. I also wonder about the performance implications of creating arrays. But that might be negligible.