skip to main content
10.1145/2846680.2846688acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessplashConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Comparing transitive to non-transitive object immutability

Published:26 October 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Many programming languages provide features that express restrictions on which data structures can be changed. For example, C++ includes const and Java includes final. Languages that are in widespread use typically provide non-transitive immutability: when a reference is specified to be immutable or read-only, the object referenced can still reference mutable structures. However, some languages, particularly research languages, provide transitive immutability, in which immutable objects can only reference other immutable objects (with some exceptions). We are designing a lab study of programmers to elucidate the differences in programmer effectiveness between these two approaches.

References

  1. Bloch, J. Effective Java, Second Edition. Mountain View, CA Sun Microsystems, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Oracle Corp. Secure Coding Guidelines for the Java SE, version 4.0. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/seccodeguide- 139067.html#6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Zibin, Y., Potanin, A., Ali, M., Artzi, S., Kie, A. un, and Ernst, M. D. (2007). Object and Reference Immutability Using Java Generics. In Proceedings of the 11th European Software Engineering Conference and the 15th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (pp. 7584). New York, NY, USA: ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Pechtchanski, I., and Sarkar, V. (2002). Immutability specification and its applications. In Proceedings of the 2002 Joint ACM-ISCOPE conference on Java Grande - JGI ’02 (pp. 202- 211). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Microsoft, Inc. Freezable Objects Overview. https://msdn.microsoft.com/enus/library/vstudio/ms750509(v=vs.100).aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Stylos, J. and Clarke, S. Usability Implications of Requiring Parameters in Objects’ Constructors. In International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’2007). Minneapolis, MN: pp. 529–539. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. The Rust Programming Language. Mozilla Research. https://www.rust-lang.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Comparing transitive to non-transitive object immutability

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            PLATEAU 2015: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools
            October 2015
            67 pages
            ISBN:9781450339070
            DOI:10.1145/2846680

            Copyright © 2015 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 26 October 2015

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • short-paper

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate5of8submissions,63%

            Upcoming Conference

          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

            Other Metrics

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader