> if you don't understand the use case where structural sharing in persistent immutable data structures is useful
No need to insinuate that I don't understand. I've used it extensively in production and I think most code-bases are better off without Immutable.
> However, if, for example, you are maintaining maps containing many items which are updated frequently, then you may benefit from the time and space complexity of structurally shared maps (Immutable.js) rather than creating a full copy on each mutation (plain JS objects).
It was exactly this situation, maintaining maps with thousands of GeoJSON features and working on these items, where I found Immutable to fall short. The parsing/building of the data-structure alone took, If I recall correctly, about 50 times longer than with normal JS-objects.
No need to insinuate that I don't understand. I've used it extensively in production and I think most code-bases are better off without Immutable.
> However, if, for example, you are maintaining maps containing many items which are updated frequently, then you may benefit from the time and space complexity of structurally shared maps (Immutable.js) rather than creating a full copy on each mutation (plain JS objects).
It was exactly this situation, maintaining maps with thousands of GeoJSON features and working on these items, where I found Immutable to fall short. The parsing/building of the data-structure alone took, If I recall correctly, about 50 times longer than with normal JS-objects.