I'm trying to get my head around mutable vs immutable objects. Using mutable objects gets a lot of bad press (e.g. returning an array of strings from a method) but I'm having trouble understanding what the negative impacts are of this. What are the best practices around using mutable objects? Should you avoid them whenever possible?
Well, there are a few aspects to this.
Mutable objects without reference-identity can cause bugs at odd times. For example, consider a Person bean with a value-based equals method:
Map<Person, String> map = ...
Person p = new Person();
map.put(p, "Hey, there!");
p.setName("Daniel");
map.get(p); // => null
The Person instance gets "lost" in the map when used as a key because its hashCode and equality were based upon mutable values. Those values changed outside the map and all of the hashing became obsolete. Theorists like to harp on this point, but in practice I haven't found it to be too much of an issue.
Another aspect is the logical "reasonability" of your code. This is a hard term to define, encompassing everything from readability to flow. Generically, you should be able to look at a piece of code and easily understand what it does. But more important than that, you should be able to convince yourself that it does what it does correctly. When objects can change independently across different code "domains", it sometimes becomes difficult to keep track of what is where and why ("spooky action at a distance"). This is a more difficult concept to exemplify, but it's something that is often faced in larger, more complex architectures.
Finally, mutable objects are killer in concurrent situations. Whenever you access a mutable object from separate threads, you have to deal with locking. This reduces throughput and makes your code dramatically more difficult to maintain. A sufficiently complicated system blows this problem so far out of proportion that it becomes nearly impossible to maintain (even for concurrency experts).
Immutable objects (and more particularly, immutable collections) avoid all of these problems. Once you get your mind around how they work, your code will develop into something which is easier to read, easier to maintain and less likely to fail in odd and unpredictable ways. Immutable objects are even easier to test, due not only to their easy mockability, but also the code patterns they tend to enforce. In short, they're good practice all around!
With that said, I'm hardly a zealot in this matter. Some problems just don't model nicely when everything is immutable. But I do think that you should try to push as much of your code in that direction as possible, assuming of course that you're using a language which makes this a tenable opinion (C/C++ makes this very difficult, as does Java). In short: the advantages depend somewhat on your problem, but I would tend to prefer immutability.
Immutable Objects vs. Immutable Collections
One of the finer points in the debate over mutable vs. immutable objects is the possibility of extending the concept of immutability to collections. An immutable object is an object that often represents a single logical structure of data (for example an immutable string). When you have a reference to an immutable object, the contents of the object will not change.
An immutable collection is a collection that never changes.
When I perform an operation on a mutable collection, then I change the collection in place, and all entities that have references to the collection will see the change.
When I perform an operation on an immutable collection, a reference is returned to a new collection reflecting the change. All entities that have references to previous versions of the collection will not see the change.
Clever implementations do not necessarily need to copy (clone) the entire collection in order to provide that immutability. The simplest example is the stack implemented as a singly linked list and the push/pop operations. You can reuse all of the nodes from the previous collection in the new collection, adding only a single node for the push, and cloning no nodes for the pop. The push_tail operation on a singly linked list, on the other hand, is not so simple or efficient.
Immutable vs. Mutable variables/references
Some functional languages take the concept of immutability to object references themselves, allowing only a single reference assignment.
In Erlang this is true for all "variables". I can only assign objects to a reference once. If I were to operate on a collection, I would not be able to reassign the new collection to the old reference (variable name).
Scala also builds this into the language with all references being declared with var or val, vals only being single assignment and promoting a functional style, but vars allowing a more C-like or Java-like program structure.
The var/val declaration is required, while many traditional languages use optional modifiers such as final in java and const in C.
Ease of Development vs. Performance
Almost always the reason to use an immutable object is to promote side effect free programming and simple reasoning about the code (especially in a highly concurrent/parallel environment). You don't have to worry about the underlying data being changed by another entity if the object is immutable.
The main drawback is performance. Here is a write-up on a simple test I did in Java comparing some immutable vs. mutable objects in a toy problem.
The performance issues are moot in many applications, but not all, which is why many large numerical packages, such as the Numpy Array class in Python, allow for In-Place updates of large arrays. This would be important for application areas that make use of large matrix and vector operations. This large data-parallel and computationally intensive problems achieve a great speed-up by operating in place.
Immutable objects are a very powerful concept. They take away a lot of the burden of trying to keep objects/variables consistent for all clients.
You can use them for low level, non-polymorphic objects - like a CPoint class - that are used mostly with value semantics.
Or you can use them for high level, polymorphic interfaces - like an IFunction representing a mathematical function - that is used exclusively with object semantics.
Greatest advantage: immutability + object semantics + smart pointers make object ownership a non-issue, all clients of the object have their own private copy by default. Implicitly this also means deterministic behavior in the presence of concurrency.
Disadvantage: when used with objects containing lots of data, memory consumption can become an issue. A solution to this could be to keep operations on an object symbolic and do a lazy evaluation. However, this can then lead to chains of symbolic calculations, that may negatively influence performance if the interface is not designed to accommodate symbolic operations. Something to definitely avoid in this case is returning huge chunks of memory from a method. In combination with chained symbolic operations, this could lead to massive memory consumption and performance degradation.
So immutable objects are definitely my primary way of thinking about object-oriented design, but they are not a dogma.
They solve a lot of problems for clients of objects, but also create many, especially for the implementers.
Check this blog post: http://www.yegor256.com/2014/06/09/objects-should-be-immutable.html. It explains why immutable objects are better than mutable. In short:
immutable objects are simpler to construct, test, and use
truly immutable objects are always thread-safe
they help to avoid temporal coupling
their usage is side-effect free (no defensive copies)
identity mutability problem is avoided
they always have failure atomicity
they are much easier to cache
You should specify what language you're talking about. For low-level languages like C or C++, I prefer to use mutable objects to conserve space and reduce memory churn. In higher-level languages, immutable objects make it easier to reason about the behavior of the code (especially multi-threaded code) because there's no "spooky action at a distance".
A mutable object is simply an object that can be modified after it's created/instantiated, vs an immutable object that cannot be modified (see the Wikipedia page on the subject). An example of this in a programming language is Pythons lists and tuples. Lists can be modified (e.g., new items can be added after it's created) whereas tuples cannot.
I don't really think there's a clearcut answer as to which one is better for all situations. They both have their places.
Shortly:
Mutable instance is passed by reference.
Immutable instance is passed by value.
Abstract example. Lets suppose that there exists a file named txtfile on my HDD. Now, when you are asking me to give you the txtfile file, I can do it in the following two modes:
I can create a shortcut to the txtfile and pass shortcut to you, or
I can do a full copy of the txtfile file and pass copied file to you.
In the first mode, the returned file represents a mutable file, because any change into the shortcut file will be reflected into the original one as well, and vice versa.
In the second mode, the returned file represents an immutable file, because any change into the copied file will not be reflected into the original one, and vice versa.
If a class type is mutable, a variable of that class type can have a number of different meanings. For example, suppose an object foo has a field int[] arr, and it holds a reference to a int[3] holding the numbers {5, 7, 9}. Even though the type of the field is known, there are at least four different things it can represent:
A potentially-shared reference, all of whose holders care only that it encapsulates the values 5, 7, and 9. If foo wants arr to encapsulate different values, it must replace it with a different array that contains the desired values. If one wants to make a copy of foo, one may give the copy either a reference to arr or a new array holding the values {1,2,3}, whichever is more convenient.
The only reference, anywhere in the universe, to an array which encapsulates the values 5, 7, and 9. set of three storage locations which at the moment hold the values 5, 7, and 9; if foo wants it to encapsulate the values 5, 8, and 9, it may either change the second item in that array or create a new array holding the values 5, 8, and 9 and abandon the old one. Note that if one wanted to make a copy of foo, one must in the copy replace arr with a reference to a new array in order for foo.arr to remain as the only reference to that array anywhere in the universe.
A reference to an array which is owned by some other object that has exposed it to foo for some reason (e.g. perhaps it wants foo to store some data there). In this scenario, arr doesn't encapsulate the contents of the array, but rather its identity. Because replacing arr with a reference to a new array would totally change its meaning, a copy of foo should hold a reference to the same array.
A reference to an array of which foo is the sole owner, but to which references are held by other object for some reason (e.g. it wants to have the other object to store data there--the flipside of the previous case). In this scenario, arr encapsulates both the identity of the array and its contents. Replacing arr with a reference to a new array would totally change its meaning, but having a clone's arr refer to foo.arr would violate the assumption that foo is the sole owner. There is thus no way to copy foo.
In theory, int[] should be a nice simple well-defined type, but it has four very different meanings. By contrast, a reference to an immutable object (e.g. String) generally only has one meaning. Much of the "power" of immutable objects stems from that fact.
Mutable collections are in general faster than their immutable counterparts when used for in-place
operations.
However, mutability comes at a cost: you need to be much more careful sharing them between
different parts of your program.
It is easy to create bugs where a shared mutable collection is updated
unexpectedly, forcing you to hunt down which line in a large codebase is performing the unwanted update.
A common approach is to use mutable collections locally within a function or private to a class where there
is a performance bottleneck, but to use immutable collections elsewhere where speed is less of a concern.
That gives you the high performance of mutable collections where it matters most, while not sacrificing
the safety that immutable collections give you throughout the bulk of your application logic.
If you return references of an array or string, then outside world can modify the content in that object, and hence make it as mutable (modifiable) object.
Immutable means can't be changed, and mutable means you can change.
Objects are different than primitives in Java. Primitives are built in types (boolean, int, etc) and objects (classes) are user created types.
Primitives and objects can be mutable or immutable when defined as member variables within the implementation of a class.
A lot of people people think primitives and object variables having a final modifier infront of them are immutable, however, this isn't exactly true. So final almost doesn't mean immutable for variables. See example here
http://www.siteconsortium.com/h/D0000F.php.
General Mutable vs Immutable
Unmodifiable - is a wrapper around modifiable. It guarantees that it can not be changed directly(but it is possibly using backing object)
Immutable - state of which can not be changed after creation. Object is immutable when all its fields are immutable. It is a next step of Unmodifiable object
Thread safe
The main advantage of Immutable object is that it is a naturally for concurrent environment. The biggest problem in concurrency is shared resource which can be changed any of thread. But if an object is immutable it is read-only which is thread safe operation. Any modification of an original immutable object return a copy
source of truth, side-effects free
As a developer you are completely sure that immutable object's state can not be changed from any place(on purpose or not). For example if a consumer uses immutable object he is able to use an original immutable object
compile optimisation
Improve performance
Disadvantage:
Copying of object is more heavy operation than changing a mutable object, that is why it has some performance footprint
To create an immutable object you should use:
1. Language level
Each language contains tools to help you with it. For example:
Java has final and primitives
Swift has let and struct[About].
Language defines a type of variable. For example:
Java has primitive and reference type,
Swift has value and reference type[About].
For immutable object more convenient is primitives and value type which make a copy by default. As for reference type it is more difficult(because you are able to change object's state out of it) but possible. For example you can use clone pattern on a developer level to make a deep(instead of shallow) copy.
2. Developer level
As a developer you should not provide an interface for changing state
[Swift] and [Java] immutable collection
What is to implement a custom string type in f# for interning strings. i have to read large csv files into memory. Given most of the columns are categorical, values are repeating and it makes sense to create new string first time it is encountered and only refer to it on subsequent occurrences to save memory.
In c# I do this by creating a global intern pool (concurrent dict) and before setting a value, lookup the dictionary if it already exists. if it exists, just point to the string already in the dictionary. if not, add it to the dictionary and set the value to the string just added to dictionary.
New to f# and wondering what is the best way to do this in f#. will be using the new string type in records named tuples etc and it will have to work with concurrent processes.
Edit:
String.Intern uses the Intern Pool. My understanding is, it is not very efficient for large pools and is not garbage collected i.e. any/all interned strings will remain in intern pool for lifetime of the app. Imagine a an application where you read a file, perform some operations and write data. Using Intern Pool solution will probably work. Now imagine you have to do the same 100 times and the strings in each file have little in common. If the memory is allocated on heap, after processing each file, we can force garbage collector to clear unnecessary strings.
I should have mentioned I could not really figure out how to do the C# approach in F# (other than implementing a C# type and using it in F#)
Memorisation pattern is slightly different from what I am looking for? We are not caching calculated results - we are ensuring each string object is created no more than once and all subsequent creations of same string are just references to the original. Using a dictionary to do this is a one way and using String.Intern is other.
sorry if is am missing something obvious here.
I have a few things to say, so I'll post them as an answer.
First, I guess String.Intern works just as well in F# as in C#.
let x = "abc"
let y = StringBuilder("a").Append("bc").ToString()
printfn "1 : %A" (LanguagePrimitives.PhysicalEquality x y) // false
let y2 = String.Intern y
printfn "2 : %A" (LanguagePrimitives.PhysicalEquality x y2) // true
Second, are you using a dictionary in combination with String.Intern in your C# solution? If so, why not just do s = String.Intern(s); after the string is ready following input from file?
To create a type for use in your business domain to handle string deduplication in general is a very bad idea. You don't want your business domain polluted by that kind of low level stuff.
As for rolling your own. I did that some years ago, probably to avoid that problem you mentioned with the strings not being garbage collected, but I never tested if that actually was a problem.
It might be a good idea to use a dictionary (or something) for each column (or type of column) where the same values are likely to repeat in great numbers. (This is pretty much what you said already.)
It makes sense to only keep these dictionaries live while you read the information from file, and stuff it into internal data structures. You might be thinking that you need the dictionaries for subsequent reads, but I am not so sure about that.
The important thing is to deduplicate the great majority of strings, and not necessarily every single duplicate. Because of this you can greatly simplify the solution as indicated. You most probably have nothing to gain by overcomplicating your solution to squeeze out the last fraction of memory savings.
Releasing the dictionaries after the file is read and structures filled, will have the advantage of not holding on to strings when they are no longer really needed. And of course you save memory by not holding onto the dictionaries.
I see no need to handle concurrency issues in the implementation here. String.Intern must necessarily be immune to concurrency issues. If you roll your own with the design suggested, you would not use it concurrently. Each file being read would have its own set of dictionaries for its columns.
I know that Java system treats a string as an immutable type because a string is always initialized with its fixed length. Another reason is Java want to make any strings in many safe threads, which is unmodified by any users. However, because I really want to learn a complete checklist of why Java's string is immutable, so I wonder if there are any other reasons along those above?
One other reason is efficiency: If strings were mutable, every call to Class.getName, System.getProperty or basically any method that returns a string would always have to make a fresh copy. If they didn’t, you could do the following:
"".getClass().setCharAt(11, 'p')
And from that point on, the java.lang.String class would be called java.lang.Spring.
I understand what weak tables are.
But I'd like to know where weak tables can be used practically?
The docs say
Weak tables are often used in situations where you wish to annotate
values without altering them.
I don't understand that. What does that mean?
Posted as an answer from comments...
Since Lua doesn't know what you consider garbage, it won't collect anything it isn't sure to be garbage. In some situations (one of which could be debugging) you want to specify a value for a variable without causing it to be considered "not trash" by Lua. From my understanding, weak tables allow you to do what you'd normally do with variables/objects/etc, but if they're weak referenced (or in a weak table), they will still be considered garbage by Lua and collected when the garbage collection function is called.
Example: Think about if you wanted to use an associative array, with key/value pairs in two separate private tables. If you only wanted to use the key table for one specific use, once you are done using it, it will be locked into existence in Lua. If you were to use a weak table, however, you'd be able to collect it as garbage as soon as you were done using it, freeing up the resources it was using.
To explain that one cryptic sentence about annotating, when you "alter" a variable, you lock it into existence and Lua no longer considers it to be garbage. To "annotate" a variable means to give it a name, number, or some other value. So, it means that you're allowed to give a variable a name/value without locking it into existence (so then Lua can garbage collect it).
Translation:
Weak tables are often used in situations where you wish to give a name to a value without locking the value into existence, which takes up memory.
Normally, storing a reference to an obect will prevent that object from being reclaimed when the object goes out of scope. Weak references do not prevent garbage collection.
When we talk about strings as being mutable, is this synonymous with using the word 'changeable' or 'modifiable' or is there some additional nuance to explain why this jargon is used instead of a simpler word like 'modifiable'?
I think the word "mutable" is a good option for this.
If you used "modifiable", it would be less clear. For example, if your string is a heap allocated type, when you say you are modifying the "string", it's not clear whether you're changing the data on the heap (the string's contents) or the string's heap pointer.
However, "mutable" suggests that the string's actual data is changing, to me. I think it's due to it being the same root as to mutate. If something is mutating, it's not changing from looking at A to looking at B (ie: changing a pointer), but rather mutating itself, or becoming (iteratively) something it was not originally.
A mutable object is an object that can be modified after it has been created. So in a way, it is synonymous with "modifiable." The word "mutable" means "liable or subject to change or alteration." I think it sounds better than "modifiable."
mutable
"liable or subject to change or alteration."
modifiable
"to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially;"
conversely
immutable
"not mutable; unchangeable; changeless"
unmodifiable
"incapable of being modified in form or character or strength"
In programming you more often hear the terms mutable and immutable than you do modifiable and unmodifiable. However I think it is safe to say that either way has the same meaning.
But when in Rome... so you should use mutable and immutable as they are the more commonly used terms (at least in my experience).
As to why that choice? I asked my mother in law (she is up on words :-) and from a non-programming point of view "mutable" is shorter then "modifiable"... seems likely enough of a reason to me.
Yes, mutable is the term for an object that is capable of being changed after it is created, whereas immutable refers to an object that cannot change. Mutable literally means "ability to mutate" which I think fits perfectly with how mutable objects behave.
Specifically in relation to strings, in a mutable string, if you change the first character from 'A' to 'B', you're still dealing with the same bytes in memory; one of them has just taken a different value. With immutable strings, i.e. in Java, a new object would be created at a new location in memory, because the original one cannot be changed.
Mutable is a decent word to describe that, and it has the advantage of not being loaded with real-world meanings or interpretations that would make it difficult to use precisely.
And since you didn't point out the specific context you're speaking of (and so please forgive me if this is scope creep)...
Strings in .NET specifically are immutable, not mutable. Once they're created, that's it. They never change. If change attempts are made, new strings are created and the old ones get released for garbage collection.
Here is a pretty simple explanation of mutable/immutable using java as an example:
Mutable
can be changed without reallocating memory
a StringBuffer api documentation is a mutable version the standard string class
to change the standard value of the String class you need to reallocate memory
I have never really heard of using the term modifiable.