Issue #18035 has been updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme). I understand the advantages of immutability, but I worry about the overall direction this is taking us. So I'll just quote something @mame wrote previously, as it reflects my own opinion. mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #16153#note-6:

I'm against making Ruby immutable by default. One of the most important properties of Ruby is dynamics. Ruby has allowed users to change almost anything in run time: dynamically (re)defining classes and methods (including core builtin ones), manipulating instance variables and local variables (via Binding) through encapsulation, etc. These features are not recommended to abuse, but they actually bring big flexibility: monkey-patching, DRY, flexible operation, etc. However, blindly freezing objects may spoil this usefulness.

It is a bit arguable if this flexibility limits performance. Some people say that it is possible to make Ruby fast with the flexibility kept (TruffleRuby proves it). That being said, I admit that the flexibility actually limits performance in the current MRI, and that we have no development resource to improve MRI so much in near future. I think that my proposal #11934 was one possible way to balance the flexibility and performance. Anyway, we need to estimate how much Ruby can be faster if the flexibility is dropped. If it becomes 10 times faster, it is worth considering of course. If it becomes 10 percent faster, it does not pay (in my opinion).

---------------------------------------- Feature #18035: Introduce general model/semantic for immutability. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18035#change-106031 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- It would be good to establish some rules around mutability, immutability, frozen, and deep frozen in Ruby. I see time and time again, incorrect assumptions about how this works in production code. Constants that aren't really constant, people using `#freeze` incorrectly, etc. I don't have any particular preference but: - We should establish consistent patterns where possible, e.g. - Objects created by `new` are mutable. - Objects created by literal are immutable. We have problems with how `freeze` works on composite data types, e.g. `Hash#freeze` does not impact children keys/values, same for Array. Do we need to introduce `freeze(true)` or `#deep_freeze` or some other method? Because of this, frozen does not necessarily correspond to immutable. This is an issue which causes real world problems. I also propose to codify this where possible, in terms of "this class of object is immutable" should be enforced by the language/runtime, e.g. ```ruby module Immutable def new(...) super.freeze end end class MyImmutableObject extend Immutable def initialize(x) @x = x end def freeze return self if frozen? @x.freeze super end end o = MyImmutableObject.new([1, 2, 3]) puts o.frozen? ``` Finally, this area has an impact to thread and fiber safe programming, so it is becoming more relevant and I believe that the current approach which is rather adhoc is insufficient. I know that it's non-trivial to retrofit existing code, but maybe it can be done via magic comment, etc, which we already did for frozen string literals. Proposed PR: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/4879 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/