so what exactly is const supposed to mean?

[David Medlock]

kris wrote:
> 
> Yes, it does sounds very familiar -- to take full advantage of specific 
> hardware you may need to step away from the 'norm'. Whatever that 'norm' 
> may be. No surprise then, that it pays to keep an open mind?
> 
> You won't hear any argument from me regarding the typical multithreading 
> "paradigm" ... and there are most certainly more effective methods in 
> one manner or another ... there have been for 30 years ... *shrug*
> 
> If you intend to go on a crusade, to change the face of multithreading 
> as we currently know and "love" it, I'll sign right up :D
> 
> But, again, the state of immutability is *not* married to multithreading 
> -- it just happens to be particularly useful there too :p
> 
> 
> 
Crusade? LoL.
I can barely work on my own projects with my daughters(1 and 3 yrs).

My point was simply that const isn't the 'pot of gold' its made out to 
be(at least in the form espoused thus far).

1. Tiny multithreaded advantages.
2. Limited optimization benefits.
3. Some memory optimizations for structs(call by reference).

Changing the whole language for the above just does seem like good 
investment vs return.

Cheers
-David