Do we really need const?

[Bruce Adams]

Don Clugston Wrote:

> Bill Baxter wrote:
> > It seems from the discussion here the past week, there is no real 
> > multithreading benefit to be had from const/invariant.  'Pure' is where 
> > it's at for that.  So maybe we're just better off without the 
> > complexities of const.
> 
> I'm thinking the same way. There are clear benefits to 'pure', with both 
> multi-threading and optimisation, and it's conceptually simple and easy to 
> explain to a newbie. But 'const' seems to be a horrible morass, complicated to 
> explain, complicated to code, and with very little benefit.
> 
> At the very least, it's clear that 'const' has cost the D community a huge 
> amount of discussion bandwidth and mental space, with very little of use to show 
> for it. We may be caught in a productivity trap.

>From what I've seen here. Talking in this group all day long doesn't seem to affect productivity that badly. ;)