“ The difference is in what I call shape stability. If the shape of a type is stable, then there is no way to mutate it such that a previously valid reference into it becomes invalid.”
From an application programmers standpoint, isn’t this much weaker? Part of the appeal of not having shared mutability is not having to worry about data races in general, while this shape stability approach prevents some classes of data races it requires others to be enforced by the programmer, as far as I can tell.
It’s hard for me to tell the net effect of this, maybe preventing reference errors is enough, but I suspect that once you start having to enforce other invariants manually, it will feel like the savings from the automatic shape stability enforcement are not enough of an improvement over languages without any significant compile time memory safety checks.
“ The difference is in what I call shape stability. If the shape of a type is stable, then there is no way to mutate it such that a previously valid reference into it becomes invalid.”
From an application programmers standpoint, isn’t this much weaker? Part of the appeal of not having shared mutability is not having to worry about data races in general, while this shape stability approach prevents some classes of data races it requires others to be enforced by the programmer, as far as I can tell.
It’s hard for me to tell the net effect of this, maybe preventing reference errors is enough, but I suspect that once you start having to enforce other invariants manually, it will feel like the savings from the automatic shape stability enforcement are not enough of an improvement over languages without any significant compile time memory safety checks.