Re: the benefits of immutability

[Alexander Schmolck <address@hidden>]

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:

> Frankly, I don't see how anything follows from your comments. I made a
> point that it was annoying that String couldn't be subclassed, first
> you claimed (bizarrely) that this was so that String could be
> immutable (which of course the final StringBuffer type disproves)

No, it doesn't (Hint: "necessary" != "sufficient").

[snipped]
> If you want to argue that object oriented programming is bad in general,
> find someone else to discuss that with. In any case, I find your "arguments"
> inconsistent and self contradictory at the very best.

Maybe you should read his arguments more carefully before you accuse Vadim of
weaseling and being self-contradictory, to me they seem to make perfect sense.

'as