Related
I am working on a project that deals with lots of atomic operations. Till now I didn’t knew about atomic_load() and was only relying on assignment operator to get value of an atomic type and I haven’t seen an error except of so much of testing. Those atomic types are changed by multiple processes and threads as well by atomic_compare_exchange_strong_explicit(), so they will need an old value every time, and that’s where I always did oldValue = <Atomic_ type_variable> and it always works fine.
Is that just by chance? Should I prefer using atomic_load()?
foo = atomic_var is just a shortcut syntax for foo = atomic_load(&atomic_var);
Which itself is a shortcut for foo = atomic_load_explicit(&atomic_var, memory_order_seq_cst); That has a use-case when you want to use an ordering weaker than the default seq_cst.
The main reason for using atomic_load explicitly in your source code is probably to remind human readers that a variable or pointer is atomic. Or maybe as a part of a macro, using atomic_load(&(macro_input)) would create a compile-time error for a non-atomic pointer.
As a "generic" function, you can't take a normal function-pointer to it.
Its existence may be just to make it easier to write the language standard, and explain everything in terms of functions.
It's not the actual assignment that's key here, it's evaluating the atomic variable in an rvalue context (reading it's value as part of an expression, like you typically find on the right-hand side of an =). printf("%d\n", my_atomic_var); is also equivalent to atomic_load.
And BTW, the same thing holds for atomic_var = foo; being exactly the same as atomic_store_explicit with mo_seq_cst. Here it is assignment that's key.
Other kinds of lvalue references to an atomic variable are different, like read-modify-write atomic_var++ is equivalent to atomic_fetch_add.
I know that we can use
/// index variable
var i = 0
as a documentation comment for a single variable.
How can we do the same for a loop variable?
The following does not work:
var array = [0]
/// index variable
for i in array.indices {
// ...
}
or
var array = [0]
for /** index variable */ i in array.indices {
// ...
}
Background:
The reason why I don’t use "good" variable names is that I’m implementing a numerical algorithm which is derived using mathematical notation. It has in this case only single letter variable names. In order to better see the connection between the derivation and the implementation I use the same variable names.
Now I want to comment on the variables in code.
The use of /// is primarily intended for use of documenting the API of of a class, struct, etc. in Swift.
So if used before a class, func, a var/let in a class/struct, etc. you are attaching documentation to that code aspect that Xcode understands how to show inline. It doesn’t know how to pickup that information for things inside of function since at this time that is not the intention of /// (it may work for simple var/let but not likely fully on purpose).
Instead use a simple // code comment for the benefit of any those working in the code however avoid over documenting the code since good code is likely fairly self explaining to anyone versed in the language and adding unneeded documentations can get in the way of just reading the code.
This is a good reference for code documentation in Swift at this time Swift Documentation
I woud strongly push back on something like this if I saw it in a PR. i is a massively well adopted "term of art" for loop indices. Generally, if your variable declaration name needs to be commented, you need a better variable name. There are some exceptions, such as when it stores data with complicated uses/invariants that can't be captured in a better way in a type system.
I think commenting is one area that beginners get wrong, mainly from being misled by teachers or by not yet fully understanding the purpose of comments. Comments don't exist to create an english based, psuedo-programming language in which your entire app will be duplicated. Understanding the programming language is a minimal expectation out of contributors to a project. Absolutely no comments should be explaining programming language features. E.g. var x: Int = 0 // declares a new mutable variable called x, to the Int value 0, with the exception of tutorials for learning Swift.
Commenting in this manner might seem like it's helpful, because you could argue it explains things for beginners. That may be the case, but it's suffocating for all other readers. Imagine if novel had to define all the English words they used.
Instead, the goal of documentation to explain the purpose and the use of things. To answer such questions as:
Why did you implement something this way, and not another way?
What purpose does this method serve?
When will this method of my delegate be called?
Case Study: Equatable
For a good example, take a look at the documentation of Equatable
Some things to notice:
It's written for an audience of Swift developers. It uses many things, which it does not explain such as, arrays, strings, constants, variable declaration, assignment, if statements, method calls (such as Array.contains(_:)), string interpolation, the print function.
It explains the general purpose of this protocol.
It explains how to use this protocol
It explains how you can adopt this protocol for your own use
It documents contractual requirements that cannot be enforced by the type system.
Since equality between instances of Equatable types is an equivalence relation, any of your custom types that conform to Equatable must satisfy three conditions, for any values a, b, and c:
a == a is always true (Reflexivity)
a == b implies b == a (Symmetry)
a == b and b == c implies a == c (Transitivity)
It explains possible misconceptions about the protocol ("Equality is Separate From Identity")
I'm not seeing a lot of info in the swift stdlib reference. For example, Dictionary says certain methods (like remove) will invalidate indices, but that's it.
For a language to call itself "safe", it needs a solution to the classic C++ footguns:
get pointer to element in a vector, then add more elements (pointer is now invalidated), now use pointer, crash
start iterating through a collection. while iterating, remove some elements (either before or after the current iterator position). continue iterating, crash.
(edit: in c++, you're lucky to crash - worse case is memory corruption)
I believe 1 is solved by swift because if a collection stores classes, taking a reference (e.g. strong pointer) to an element will increase the refcount. However, I don't know the answer for 2.
It would be super useful if there was a comparison of footguns in c++ that are/are not solved by swift.
EDIT, due to Robs answer:
It does appear that there's some undocumented snapshot-like behavior going on
with Dictionary and/or for loops. The iteration creates a snapshot / hidden
copy of it when it starts.
Which gives me both a big "WAT" and "cool, that's sort of safe, I guess", and "how expensive is this copy?".
I don't see this documented either in Generator or in for-loop.
The below code prints two logical snapshots of the dictionary. The first
snapshot is userInfo as it was at the start of the iteration loop, and does
not reflect any modifications made during the loop.
var userInfo: [String: String] = [
"first_name" : "Andrei",
"last_name" : "Puni",
"job_title" : "Mad scientist"
]
userInfo["added_one"] = "1" // can modify because it's var
print("first snapshot:")
var hijacked = false
for (key, value) in userInfo {
if !hijacked {
userInfo["added_two"] = "2" // doesn't error
userInfo.removeValueForKey("first_name") // doesn't error
hijacked = true
}
print("- \(key): \(value)")
}
userInfo["added_three"] = "3" // modify again
print("final snapshot:")
for (key, value) in userInfo {
print("- \(key): \(value)")
}
As you say, #1 is not an issue. You do not have a pointer to the object in Swift. You either have its value or a reference to it. If you have its value, then it's a copy. If you have a reference, then it's protected. So there's no issue here.
But let's consider the second and experiment, be surprised, and then stop being surprised.
var xs = [1,2,3,4]
for x in xs { // (1)
if x == 2 {
xs.removeAll() // (2)
}
print(x) // Prints "1\n2\n3\n\4\n"
}
xs // [] (3)
Wait, how does it print all the values when we blow away the values at (2). We are very surprised now.
But we shouldn't be. Swift arrays are values. The xs at (1) is a value. Nothing can ever change it. It's not "a pointer to memory that includes an array structure that contains 4 elements." It's the value [1,2,3,4]. At (2), we don't "remove all elements from the thing xs pointed to." We take the thing xs is, create an array that results if you remove all the elements (that would be [] in all cases), and then assign that new array to xs. Nothing bad happens.
So what does the documentation mean by "invalidates all indices?" It means exactly that. If we generated indices, they're no good anymore. Let's see:
var xs = [1,2,3,4]
for i in xs.indices {
if i == 2 {
xs.removeAll()
}
print(xs[i]) // Prints "1\n2\n" and then CRASH!!!
}
Once xs.removeAll() is called, there's no promise that the old result of xs.indices means anything anymore. You are not permitted to use those indices safely against the collection they came from.
"Invalidates indices" in Swift is not the same as C++'s "invalidates iterators." I'd call that pretty safe, except the fact that using collection indices is always a bit dangerous and so you should avoid indexing collections when you can help it; iterate them instead. Even if you need the indexes for some reason, use enumerate to get them without creating any of the danger of indexing.
(Side note, dict["key"] is not indexing into dict. Dictionaries are a little confusing because their key is not their index. Accessing dictionaries by their DictionaryIndex index is just as dangerous as accessing arrays by their Int index.)
Note also that the above doesn't apply to NSArray. If you modify NSArray while iterating it, you'll get a "mutated collection while iterating" error. I'm only discussing Swift data types.
EDIT: for-in is very explicit in how it works:
The generate() method is called on the collection expression to obtain a value of a generator type—that is, a type that conforms to the GeneratorType protocol. The program begins executing a loop by calling the next() method on the stream. If the value returned is not None, it is assigned to the item pattern, the program executes the statements, and then continues execution at the beginning of the loop. Otherwise, the program does not perform assignment or execute the statements, and it is finished executing the for-in statement.
The returned Generator is a struct and contains a collection value. You would not expect any changes to some other value to modify its behavior. Remember: [1,2,3] is no different than 4. They're both values. When you assign them, they make copies. So when you create a Generator over a collection value, you're going to snapshot that value, just like if I created a Generator over the number 4. (This raises an interesting problem, because Generators aren't really values, and so really shouldn't be structs. They should be classes. Swift stdlib has been fixing that. See the new AnyGenerator for instance. But they still contain an array value, and you would never expect changes to some other array value to impact them.)
See also "Structures and Enumerations Are Value Types" which goes into more detail on the importance of value types in Swift. Arrays are just structs.
Yes, that means there's logically copying. Swift has many optimizations to minimize actual copying when it's not needed. In your case, when you mutate the dictionary while it's being iterated, that will force a copy to happen. Mutation is cheap if you're the only consumer of a particular value's backing storage. But it's O(n) if you're not. (This is determined by the Swift builtin isUniquelyReferenced().) Long story short: Swift Collections are Copy-on-Write, and simply passing an array does not cause real memory to be allocated or copied.
You don't get COW for free. Your own structs are not COW. It's something that Swift does in stdlib. (See Mike Ash's great discussion of how you would recreate it.) Passing your own custom structs causes real copies to happen. That said, the majority of the memory in most structs is stored in collections, and those collections are COW, so the cost of copying structs is usually pretty small.
The book doesn't spend a lot of time drilling into value types in Swift (it explains it all; it just doesn't keep saying "hey, and this is what that implies"). On the other hand, it was the constant topic at WWDC. You may be interested particularly in Building Better Apps with Value Types in Swift which is all about this topic. I believe Swift in Practice also discussed it.
EDIT2:
#KarlP raises an interesting point in the comments below, and it's worth addressing. None of the value-safety promises we're discussing are related to for-in. They're based on Array. for-in makes no promises at all about what would happen if you mutated a collection while it is being iterated. That wouldn't even be meaningful. for-in doesn't "iterate over collections," it calls next() on Generators. So if your Generator becomes undefined if the collection is changed, then for-in will blow up because the Generator blew up.
That means that the following might be unsafe, depending on how strictly you read the spec:
func nukeFromOrbit<C: RangeReplaceableCollectionType>(var xs: C) {
var hijack = true
for x in xs {
if hijack {
xs.removeAll()
hijack = false
}
print(x)
}
}
And the compiler won't help you here. It'll work fine for all of the Swift collections. But if calling next() after mutation for your collection is undefined behavior, then this is undefined behavior.
My opinion is that it would be poor Swift to make a collection that allows its Generator to become undefined in this case. You could even argue that you've broken the Generator spec if you do (it offers no UB "out" unless the generator has been copied or has returned nil). So you could argue that the above code is totally within spec and your generator is broken. Those arguments tend to be a bit messy with a "spec" like Swift's which doesn't dive into all the corner cases.
Does this mean you can write unsafe code in Swift without getting a clear warning? Absolutely. But in the many cases that commonly cause real-world bugs, Swift's built-in behavior does the right thing. And in that, it is safer than some other options.
I am new to Scala and heard a lot that everything is an object in Scala. What I don't get is what's the advantage of "everything's an object"? What are things that I cannot do if everything is not an object? Examples are welcome. Thanks
The advantage of having "everything" be an object is that you have far fewer cases where abstraction breaks.
For example, methods are not objects in Java. So if I have two strings, I can
String s1 = "one";
String s2 = "two";
static String caps(String s) { return s.toUpperCase(); }
caps(s1); // Works
caps(s2); // Also works
So we have abstracted away string identity in our operation of making something upper case. But what if we want to abstract away the identity of the operation--that is, we do something to a String that gives back another String but we want to abstract away what the details are? Now we're stuck, because methods aren't objects in Java.
In Scala, methods can be converted to functions, which are objects. For instance:
def stringop(s: String, f: String => String) = if (s.length > 0) f(s) else s
stringop(s1, _.toUpperCase)
stringop(s2, _.toLowerCase)
Now we have abstracted the idea of performing some string transformation on nonempty strings.
And we can make lists of the operations and such and pass them around, if that's what we need to do.
There are other less essential cases (object vs. class, primitive vs. not, value classes, etc.), but the big one is collapsing the distinction between method and object so that passing around and abstracting over functionality is just as easy as passing around and abstracting over data.
The advantage is that you don't have different operators that follow different rules within your language. For example, in Java to perform operations involving objects, you use the dot name technique of calling the code (static objects still use the dot name technique, but sometimes the this object or the static object is inferred) while built-in items (not objects) use a different method, that of built-in operator manipulation.
Number one = Integer.valueOf(1);
Number two = Integer.valueOf(2);
Number three = one.plus(two); // if only such methods existed.
int one = 1;
int two = 2;
int three = one + two;
the main differences is that the dot name technique is subject to polymorphisim, operator overloading, method hiding, and all the good stuff that you can do with Java objects. The + technique is predefined and completely not flexible.
Scala circumvents the inflexibility of the + method by basically handling it as a dot name operator, and defining a strong one-to-one mapping of such operators to object methods. Hence, in Scala everything is an object means that everything is an object, so the operation
5 + 7
results in two objects being created (a 5 object and a 7 object) the plus method of the 5 object being called with the parameter 7 (if my scala memory serves me correctly) and a "12" object being returned as the value of the 5 + 7 operation.
This everything is an object has a lot of benefits in a functional programming environment, for example, blocks of code now are object too, making it possible to pass back and forth blocks of code (without names) as parameters, yet still be bound to strict type checking (the block of code only returns Long or a subclass of String or whatever).
When it boils down to it, it makes some kinds of solutions very easy to implement, and often the inefficiencies are mitigated by the lack of need to handle "move into primitives, manipulate, move out of primitives" marshalling code.
One specific advantage that comes to my mind (since you asked for examples) is what in Java are primitive types (int, boolean ...) , in Scala are objects that you can add functionality to with implicit conversions. For example, if you want to add a toRoman method to ints, you could write an implicit class like:
implicit class RomanInt(i:Int){
def toRoman = //some algorithm to convert i to a Roman representation
}
Then, you could call this method from any Int literal like :
val romanFive = 5.toRoman // V
This way you can 'pimp' basic types to adapt them to your needs
In addition to the points made by others, I always emphasize that the uniform treatment of all values in Scala is in part an illusion. For the most part it is a very welcome illusion. And Scala is very smart to use real JVM primitives as much as possible and to perform automatic transformations (usually referred to as boxing and unboxing) only as much as necessary.
However, if the dynamic pattern of application of automatic boxing and unboxing is very high, there can be undesirable costs (both memory and CPU) associated with it. This can be partially mitigated with the use of specialization, which creates special versions of generic classes when particular type parameters are of (programmer-specified) primitive types. This avoids boxing and unboxing but comes at the cost of more .class files in your running application.
Not everything is an object in Scala, though more things are objects in Scala than their analogues in Java.
The advantage of objects is that they're bags of state which also have some behavior coupled with them. With the addition of polymorphism, objects give you ways of changing the implicit behavior and state. Enough with the poetry, let's go into some examples.
The if statement is not an object, in either scala or java. If it were, you could be able to subclass it, inject another dependency in its place, and use it to do stuff like logging to a file any time your code makes use of the if statement. Wouldn't that be magical? It would in some cases help you debug stuff, and in other cases it would make your hairs grow white before you found a bug caused by someone overwriting the behavior of if.
Visiting an objectless, statementful world: Imaging your favorite OOP programming language. Think of the standard library it provides. There's plenty of classes there, right? They offer ways for customization, right? They take parameters that are other objects, they create other objects. You can customize all of these. You have polymorphism. Now imagine that all the standard library was simply keywords. You wouldn't be able to customize nearly as much, because you can't overwrite keywords. You'd be stuck with whatever cases the language designers decided to implement, and you'd be helpless in customizing anything there. Such languages exist, you know them well, they're the sequel-like languages. You can barely create functions there, but in order to customize the behavior of the SELECT statement, new versions of the language had to appear which included the features most desired. This would be an extreme world, where you'd only be able to program by asking the language designers for new features (which you might not get, because someone else more important would require some feature incompatible with what you want)
In conclusion, NOT everything is an object in scala: Classes, expressions, keywords and packages surely aren't. More things however are, like functions.
What's IMHO a nice rule of thumb is that more objects equals more flexibility
P.S. in Python for example, even more things are objects (like the classes themselves, the analogous concept for packages (that is python modules and packages). You'd see how there, black magic is easier to do, and that brings both good and bad consequences.
I'm trying to learn scala and I'm unable to grasp this concept. Why does making an object immutable help prevent side-effects in functions. Can anyone explain like I'm five?
Interesting question, a bit difficult to answer.
Functional programming is very much about using mathematics to reason about programs. To do so, one needs a formalism that describe the programs and how one can make proofs about properties they might have.
There are many models of computation that provide such formalisms, such as lambda calculus and turing machines. And there's a certain degree of equivalency between them (see this question, for a discussion).
In a very real sense, programs with mutability and some other side effects have a direct mapping to functional program. Consider this example:
a = 0
b = 1
a = a + b
Here are two ways of mapping it to functional program. First one, a and b are part of a "state", and each line is a function from a state into a new state:
state1 = (a = 0, b = ?)
state2 = (a = state1.a, b = 1)
state3 = (a = state2.a + state2.b, b = state2.b)
Here's another, where each variable is associated with a time:
(a, t0) = 0
(b, t1) = 1
(a, t2) = (a, t0) + (b, t1)
So, given the above, why not use mutability?
Well, here's the interesting thing about math: the less powerful the formalism is, the easier it is to make proofs with it. Or, to put it in other words, it's too hard to reason about programs that have mutability.
As a consequence, there's very little advance regarding concepts in programming with mutability. The famous Design Patterns were not arrived at through study, nor do they have any mathematical backing. Instead, they are the result of years and years of trial and error, and some of them have since proved to be misguided. Who knows about the other dozens "design patterns" seen everywhere?
Meanwhile, Haskell programmers came up with Functors, Monads, Co-monads, Zippers, Applicatives, Lenses... dozens of concepts with mathematical backing and, most importantly, actual patterns of how code is composed to make up programs. Things you can use to reason about your program, increase reusability and improve correctness. Take a look at the Typeclassopedia for examples.
It's no wonder people not familiar with functional programming get a bit scared with this stuff... by comparison, the rest of the programming world is still working with a few decades-old concepts. The very idea of new concepts is alien.
Unfortunately, all these patterns, all these concepts, only apply with the code they are working with does not contain mutability (or other side effects). If it does, then their properties cease to be valid, and you can't rely on them. You are back to guessing, testing and debugging.
In short, if a function mutates an object then it has side effects. Mutation is a side effect. This is just true by definition.
In truth, in a purely functional language it should not matter if an object is technically mutable or immutable, because the language will never "try" to mutate an object anyway. A pure functional language doesn't give you any way to perform side effects.
Scala is not a pure functional language, though, and it runs in the Java environment in which side effects are very popular. In this environment, using objects that are incapable of mutation encourages you to use a pure functional style because it makes a side-effect oriented style impossible. You are using data types to enforce purity because the language does not do it for you.
Now I will say a bunch of other stuff in the hope that it helps this make sense to you.
Fundamental to the concept of a variable in functional languages is referential transparency.
Referential transparency means that there is no difference between a value, and a reference to that value. In a language where this is true, it makes it much simpler to think about a program works, since you never have to stop and ask, is this a value, or a reference to a value? Anyone who's ever programmed in C recognizes that a great part of the challenge of learning that paradigm is knowing which is which at all times.
In order to have referential transparency, the value that a reference refers to can never change.
(Warning, I'm about to make an analogy.)
Think of it this way: in your cell phone, you have saved some phone numbers of other people's cell phones. You assume that whenever you call that phone number, you will reach the person you intend to talk to. If someone else wants to talk to your friend, you give them the phone number and they reach that same person.
If someone changes their cell phone number, this system breaks down. Suddenly, you need to get their new phone number if you want to reach them. Maybe you call the same number six months later and reach a different person. Calling the same number and reaching a different person is what happens when functions perform side effects: you have what seems to be the same thing, but you try to use it, it turns out it's different now. Even if you expected this, what about all the people you gave that number to, are you going to call them all up and tell them that the old number doesn't reach the same person anymore?
You counted on the phone number corresponding to that person, but it didn't really. The phone number system lacks referential transparency: the number isn't really ALWAYS the same as the person.
Functional languages avoid this problem. You can give out your phone number and people will always be able to reach you, for the rest of your life, and will never reach anybody else at that number.
However, in the Java platform, things can change. What you thought was one thing, might turn into another thing a minute later. If this is the case, how can you stop it?
Scala uses the power of types to prevent this, by making classes that have referential transparency. So, even though the language as a whole isn't referentially transparent, your code will be referentially transparent as long as you use immutable types.
Practically speaking, the advantages of coding with immutable types are:
Your code is simpler to read when the reader doesn't have to look out for surprising side effects.
If you use multiple threads, you don't have to worry about locking because shared objects can never change. When you have side effects, you have to really think through the code and figure out all the places where two threads might try to change the same object at the same time, and protect against the problems that this might cause.
Theoretically, at least, the compiler can optimize some code better if it uses only immutable types. I don't know if Java can do this effectively, though, since it allows side effects. This is a toss-up at best, anyway, because there are some problems that can be solved much more efficiently by using side effects.
I'm running with this 5 year old explanation:
class Account(var myMoney:List[Int] = List(10, 10, 1, 1, 1, 5)) {
def getBalance = println(myMoney.sum + " dollars available")
def myMoneyWithInterest = {
myMoney = myMoney.map(_ * 2)
println(myMoney.sum + " dollars will accru in 1 year")
}
}
Assume we are at an ATM and it is using this code to give us account information.
You do the following:
scala> val myAccount = new Account()
myAccount: Account = Account#7f4a6c40
scala> myAccount.getBalance
28 dollars available
scala> myAccount.myMoneyWithInterest
56 dollars will accru in 1 year
scala> myAccount.getBalance
56 dollars available
We mutated the account balance when we wanted to check our current balance plus a years worth of interest. Now we have an incorrect account balance. Bad news for the bank!
If we were using val instead of var to keep track of myMoney in the class definition, we would not have been able to mutate the dollars and raise our balance.
When defining the class (in the REPL) with val:
error: reassignment to val
myMoney = myMoney.map(_ * 2
Scala is telling us that we wanted an immutable value but are trying to change it!
Thanks to Scala, we can switch to val, re-write our myMoneyWithInterest method and rest assured that our Account class will never alter the balance.
One important property of functional programming is: If I call the same function twice with the same arguments I'll get the same result. This makes reasoning about code much easier in many cases.
Now imagine a function returning the attribute content of some object. If that content can change the function might return different results on different calls with the same argument. => no more functional programming.
First a few definitions:
A side effect is a change in state -- also called a mutation.
An immutable object is an object which does not support mutation, (side effects).
A function which is passed mutable objects (either as parameters or in the global environment) may or may not produce side effects. This is up to the implementation.
However, it is impossible for a function which is passed only immutable objects (either as parameters or in the global environment) to produce side effects. Therefore, exclusive use of immutable objects will preclude the possibility of side effects.
Nate's answer is great, and here is some example.
In functional programming, there is an important feature that when you call a function with same argument, you always get same return value.
This is always true for immutable objects, because you can't modify them after create it:
class MyValue(val value: Int)
def plus(x: MyValue) = x.value + 10
val x = new MyValue(10)
val y = plus(x) // y is 20
val z = plus(x) // z is still 20, plus(x) will always yield 20
But if you have mutable objects, you can't guarantee that plus(x) will always return same value for same instance of MyValue.
class MyValue(var value: Int)
def plus(x: MyValue) = x.value + 10
val x = new MyValue(10)
val y = plus(x) // y is 20
x.value = 30
val z = plus(x) // z is 40, you can't for sure what value will plus(x) return because MyValue.value may be changed at any point.
Why do immutable objects enable functional programming?
They don't.
Take one definition of "function," or "prodecure," "routine" or "method," which I believe applies to many programming languages: "A section of code, typically named, accepting arguments and/or returning a value."
Take one definition of "functional programming:" "Programming using functions." The ability to program with functions is indepedent of whether state is modified.
For instance, Scheme is considered a functional programming language. It features tail calls, higher-order functions and aggregate operations using functions. It also has mutable objects. While mutability destroys some nice mathematical qualities, it does not necessarily prevent "functional programming."
I've read all the answers and they don't satisfy me, because they mostly talk about "immutability", and not about its relation to FP.
The main question is:
Why do immutable objects enable functional programming?
So I've searched a bit more and I have another answer, I believe the easy answer to this question is: "Because Functional Programming is basically defined on the basis of functions that are easy to reason about". Here's the definition of Functional Programming:
The process of building software by composing pure functions.
If a function is not pure -- which means receiving the same input, it's not guaranteed to always produce the same output (e.g., if the function relies on a global object, or date and time, or a random number to compute the output) -- then that function is unpredictable, that's it! Now exactly the same story goes about "immutability" as well, if objects are not immutable, a function with the same object as its input may have different results (aka side effects) each time used, and this will make it hard to reason about the program.
I first tried to put this in a comment, but it got longer than the limit, I'm by no means a pro so please take this answer with a grain of salt.