Re: Combining mutable objects with const references

Paul Rubin:
> On a meta level, the notion that adding features to a language makes
> it more capable is tempting but bogus.  Adding feature X might give
> you the freedom to do X, but maybe what you really want is freedom
> -from- X.

I agree with what what you're saying, it's just a matter of deciding
what X you want to be free from. You refered to the features that
should be removed (in good language design) as "dangerous". Well, non-
persistence certainly isn't *dangerous*. Maybe you did not mean to
imply that the only features that need be removed are dangerous ones.

Language restrictions can no doubt be a good thing. But do we really
use functional languages to forbid the use of non-persistent data
structures? Yes, we want to forbid variables, but do we really want to
*forbid* non-persistence? This would seems bizarre to me.

And anyhow, this language would still be more restrictive than ML.
There must be a group of users in between ML and a more restrictive
language who want this.

Pat