

Musk, an avid gamer himself, claimed
Hey, glad to know this source has no credibility.
Musk, an avid gamer himself, claimed
Hey, glad to know this source has no credibility.
Because its value was always fictitious.
I’m gonna hazard a guess, just cause I’m curious, that you’re coming from JavaScript.
Regardless, the answer’s basically the same across all similar languages where this question makes sense. That is, languages that are largely, if not completely, object-oriented, where memory is managed for you.
Bottom line, object allocation is VERY expensive. Generally, objects are allocated on a heap, so the allocation process itself, in its most basic form, involves walking some portion of a linked list to find an available heap block, updating a header or other info block to track that the block is now in use, maybe sub-dividing the block to avoid wasting space, any making any updates that might be necessary to nodes of the linked list that we traversed.
THEN, we have to run similar operations later for de-allocation. And if we’re talking about a memory-managed language, well, that means running a garbage collector algorithm, periodically, that needs to somehow inspect blocks that are in use to see if they’re still in use, or can be automatically de-allocated. The most common garbage-collector I know of involves tagging all references within other objects, so that the GC can start at the “root” objects and walk the entire tree of references within references, in order to find any that are orphaned, and identify them as collectable.
My bread and butter is C#, so let’s look at an actual example.
public class MyMutableObject
{
public required ulong Id { get; set; }
public required string Name { get; set; }
}
public record MyImmutableObject
{
public required ulong Id { get; init; }
public required string Name { get; init; }
}
_immutableInstance = new()
{
Id = 1,
Name = "First"
};
_mutableInstance = new()
{
Id = 1,
Name = "First"
};
[Benchmark(Baseline = true)]
public MyMutableObject MutableEdit()
{
_mutableInstance.Name = "Second";
return _mutableInstance;
}
[Benchmark]
public MyImmutableObject ImmutableEdit()
=> _immutableInstance with
{
Name = "Second"
};
Method | Mean | Error | StdDev | Ratio | RatioSD | Gen0 | Allocated | Alloc Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MutableEdit | 1.080 ns | 0.0876 ns | 0.1439 ns | 1.02 | 0.19 | - | - | NA |
ImmutableEdit | 8.282 ns | 0.2287 ns | 0.3353 ns | 7.79 | 1.03 | 0.0076 | 32 B | NA |
Even for the most basic edit operation, immutable copying is slower by more than 7 times, and (obviously) allocates more memory, which translates to more cost to be spent on garbage collection later.
Let’s scale it up to a slightly-more realistic immutable data structure.
public class MyMutableParentObject
{
public required ulong Id { get; set; }
public required string Name { get; set; }
public required MyMutableChildObject Child { get; set; }
}
public class MyMutableChildObject
{
public required ulong Id { get; set; }
public required string Name { get; set; }
public required MyMutableGrandchildObject FirstGrandchild { get; set; }
public required MyMutableGrandchildObject SecondGrandchild { get; set; }
public required MyMutableGrandchildObject ThirdGrandchild { get; set; }
}
public class MyMutableGrandchildObject
{
public required ulong Id { get; set; }
public required string Name { get; set; }
}
public record MyImmutableParentObject
{
public required ulong Id { get; set; }
public required string Name { get; set; }
public required MyImmutableChildObject Child { get; set; }
}
public record MyImmutableChildObject
{
public required ulong Id { get; set; }
public required string Name { get; set; }
public required MyImmutableGrandchildObject FirstGrandchild { get; set; }
public required MyImmutableGrandchildObject SecondGrandchild { get; set; }
public required MyImmutableGrandchildObject ThirdGrandchild { get; set; }
}
public record MyImmutableGrandchildObject
{
public required ulong Id { get; set; }
public required string Name { get; set; }
}
_immutableTree = new()
{
Id = 1,
Name = "Parent",
Child = new()
{
Id = 2,
Name = "Child",
FirstGrandchild = new()
{
Id = 3,
Name = "First Grandchild"
},
SecondGrandchild = new()
{
Id = 4,
Name = "Second Grandchild"
},
ThirdGrandchild = new()
{
Id = 5,
Name = "Third Grandchild"
},
}
};
_mutableTree = new()
{
Id = 1,
Name = "Parent",
Child = new()
{
Id = 2,
Name = "Child",
FirstGrandchild = new()
{
Id = 3,
Name = "First Grandchild"
},
SecondGrandchild = new()
{
Id = 4,
Name = "Second Grandchild"
},
ThirdGrandchild = new()
{
Id = 5,
Name = "Third Grandchild"
},
}
};
[Benchmark(Baseline = true)]
public MyMutableParentObject MutableEdit()
{
_mutableTree.Child.SecondGrandchild.Name = "Second Grandchild Edited";
return _mutableTree;
}
[Benchmark]
public MyImmutableParentObject ImmutableEdit()
=> _immutableTree with
{
Child = _immutableTree.Child with
{
SecondGrandchild = _immutableTree.Child.SecondGrandchild with
{
Name = "Second Grandchild Edited"
}
}
};
Method | Mean | Error | StdDev | Ratio | RatioSD | Gen0 | Allocated | Alloc Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MutableEdit | 1.129 ns | 0.0840 ns | 0.0825 ns | 1.00 | 0.10 | - | - | NA |
ImmutableEdit | 32.685 ns | 0.8503 ns | 2.4534 ns | 29.09 | 2.95 | 0.0306 | 128 B | NA |
Not only is performance worse, but it drops off exponentially, as you scale out the size of your immutable structures.
Now, all this being said, I myself use the immutable object pattern FREQUENTLY, in both C# and JavaScript. There’s a lot of problems you encounter in business logic that it solves really well, and it’s basically the ideal type of data structure for use in reactive programming, which is extremely effective for building GUIs. In other words, I use immutable objects a ton when I’m building out the business layer of a UI, where data is king. If I were writing code within any of the frameworks I use to BUILD those UIs (.NET, WPF, ReactiveExtensions) you can bet I’d be using immutable objects way more sparingly.
The presentation is different, but the core problem that the FTC is targeting is the same: spending real money to gamble on artificial digital goods.
It has indeed been pushed and advertised by TikTok. Or at least, within TikTok.
A function call of “MyFunction(parameter: GLFW_TRUE)” is more readable than “MyFunction(parameter: 1)”. Not by much, mind you, but if given the choice between these two, one is clearly better. It requires no assumptions about what the reader may or may not already know about the system.It communicates intent without any ambiguity.
If only bankruptcy actually meant consequences for those responsible.
It’s fraud. They publicly claimed, point-blank, to do a certain thing for years, and were instead doing the opposite, in the interest of making more money. The affiliate link thing is only one of several points that they’re suing over. The far more egregious one is that they don’t actually “scour the internet to find you the best coupons” They will actively hide better coupons that they know about, if marketplaces pay them to, and still tell you in the browser “this is the best coupon.”
What are you considering as “paint[ing] UI-elements” in this context? I don’t see anything I would describe as “painting” in the code snippets ay those links.
Breaking Bad and Stargate Universe both come to mind. Also, a couple from House M.D.
A very large portion (maybe not quite a majority) of software developers are not very good at their jobs. Just good enough to get by.
And that is entirely okay! Applies to most jobs, honestly. But there is really NO appropriate way to express that to a coworker.
I’ve seen way too much “just keep trying random things without really knowing what you’re doing, and hope you eventually stumble into something that works” attitude from coworkers.
Outer Wilds.
but a game where the plot twist is discovering a hidden game mechanic, you could’ve done all the time
Turn this up to 11.
Part of the reason that “JavaScript sucks” is BECAUSE it doesn’t have alternatives. If you want to build a WebApp that manipulates the DOM, JS has the ONLY API to do it.
For me, “JavaScript sucks” not really because of the language itself, but because there’s such a massive disconnect between what it was designed for (small amount of bells and whistles within a web page), and what the ecosystem uses it for (foundation for entire GUI applications).
If you want to build WebApps, learn JavaScript, then do all your development with TypeScript, and be VERY mindful of the third-party dependencies you pull into your project.