A study on immutability usage

[Jesse Phillips]

On Monday, 1 October 2012 at 12:28:33 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Some quotations from the paper:
>
>>Unkel and Lam developed the term "stationary field" to describe 
>>fields which are never observed to change, that is, all writes 
>>precede all reads [for such field in all instances of the 
>>class]<
>
>>Our results from 14 Java applications indicates that 72-82% of 
>>fields are stationary<
>
>>programmers are sometimes forced (or voluntarily choose) to 
>>initialise fields late (i.e. after the constructor has 
>>completed). This prevents such fields from being marked final 
>>even when they are designed to be immutable.<

I've started to feel that when trying to be more const correct. I 
haven't put any thought in how I can/should/want to solve this or 
another related one I'm having.

I've had some containers which would be prefect as immutable, but 
there is a lot of effort to fill up all their data. The simple 
solution is to do some casting, I just haven't had time to see if 
a better design exists to create immutable and prevent mutable 
pointers. Pure doesn't work since data comes from disk.

Anyway, nice to see similar issues found in research.