undefined | Better HN

0 pointsragnese1mo ago0 comments

Yes! That's exactly how you should do it while working with a language that doesn't have a compiler that will aggressively analyze, and rewrite and optimize your code for you. (So, most languages with "heavy runtimes" that support a bunch of dynamic stuff and JITs)

There are basically two points to programming with immutable-first data. One, eliminate certain classes of data race concurrency bugs. Two, less mutable state in a given context makes it easier to reason about.

So, if you're inside a function scope and you aren't launching any concurrent operations from inside that function, you don't have to worry about benefit #1. If you're inside a function (and you're not reaching out for global mutable state), then the context you need to keep in your working memory is likely fairly small, so a few local mutable variables doesn't significantly harm "understandability" of the implementation (in most cases). So, you really don't have to worry about #2, either. Make your functions black boxes with solid "APIs" (type signatures), and let the inside do whatever it needs to make it work the best.

Just because premature optimization is the root of all evil, it doesn't mean we need to jump right to premature pessimization...

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

tombert1mo ago· 2 in thread

Yeah, and even if you need concurrency/parallelism within the function, it can be forgivable to use ConcurrentDictionary or ConcurrentBag or one of the many, many other thread safe mutable data structures built directly into .NET.

I will personally almost always prefer the pretty functional versions of things, and that's almost always what I start with. I like immutable data structures, and they are usually more than fast enough. Occasionally, though, you hit a bottleneck of some kind (usually in some form of loop), and you have to avoid all the beautiful functional stuff and go back to sad imperative stuff. When I do that, I usually try and keep it scoped to one function. Even within one function, I do find the persistent structures easier to reason about, but as you stated it's a small enough surface area to not be too irritating.

There are exceptions to this, of course. Sometimes for caching/memoizing I will make a global ConcurrentDictionary, and I'll use the interlocked thing to do global counters sometimes.

throw2342342341mo ago

I find algo performance is a consideration, but so is overall system performance especially in the face of concurrency, staleness, update rate, data processing size, consistency of data, etc. I think persistent collections are just another tool which is sometimes appropriate; and it has saved me over the standard Concurrent collections in some interesting cases. There are significantly faster immutable collection libraries than the standard F# Map class though online you can use if I recall from awhile back - still not quite mutable perf though. It tends to be appropriate to use for almost the opposite case than a single thread in a tight loop which is the usual benchmark I guess. As usual YMMV/depends on problem at hand.

tombert1mo ago

I haven't been able to fully justify it (and sadly I don't get paid for F# anymore :( ), but there was a competent port of the Scala CTrie structure available [1].

My local benchmarks got pretty decent performance, and often a bit better than the regular built-in concurrent structures, and any excuse to get rid of locks is generally a good excuse in my mind, but it was hard for me to push it when ConcurrentDictionary was fast enough and built in and maintained by a trillion dollar company.

[1] https://github.com/chrisvanderpennen/ctrie

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse