Why did Matz choose to make Strings mutable by default in Ruby?
Posted
by Seth Tisue
on Stack Overflow
See other posts from Stack Overflow
or by Seth Tisue
Published on 2010-04-09T15:01:02Z
Indexed on
2010/04/09
15:13 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 390
It's the reverse of this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/93091/why-cant-strings-be-mutable-in-java-and-net
Was this choice made in Ruby only because operations (appends and such) are efficient on mutable strings, or was there some other reason?
(If it's only efficiency, that would seem peculiar, since the design of Ruby seems otherwise to not put a high premium on faciliating efficient implementation.)
© Stack Overflow or respective owner