The article calls out event-sourcing and materialized views as a solution.
I reread the article twice now, and I don't see a conflicting definition, that would contradict i.e. append-only-log being immutable.
Unless your argument is that the author is in-denial about benefits of immutability, because it can't be achieved in this weirdly strict form you seem to propose?
But maybe I need to reread second paragraph of the article one more time?
> The article calls out event-sourcing and materialized views as a solution.
Yes, I know, and it may well be a good solution to various issues with conventional databases. I just don't see how it's a solution to global mutable state, since there still is global mutable state.
> I don't see a conflicting definition
The article never gives an explicit definition of "global mutable state". It also does not explicitly say that its proposed solution gets rid of global mutable state. The section "Global mutable state is harmful" strongly implies that its proposed solution will somehow get rid of global mutable state, but the article never actually says that it does. It just goes into a bunch of other benefits of event sourcing and materialized views, all of which might well be valid benefits, but none of which amounts to getting rid of global mutable state.
> Unless your argument is that the author is in-denial about benefits of immutability
I can't see into the author's mind, so I don't know if the aspects of the article that I described above were inadvertent, because the author simply hasn't really thought through what "global mutable state" actually means, or whether it's on purpose, to imply a claim about the article's proposed solution that sounds good but isn't actually true, as a marketing tactic.
As I said in my earlier response, the article doesn't explicitly define what "global mutable state" is, but it does say that conventional databases are global mutable state the same way that global variables in an ordinary program are.
By that definition, an append-only log as a "single point of truth" data store, which is the article's proposed "solution", is also global mutable state. The article does not acknowledge this, but it seems obvious to me.
I reread the article twice now, and I don't see a conflicting definition, that would contradict i.e. append-only-log being immutable.
Unless your argument is that the author is in-denial about benefits of immutability, because it can't be achieved in this weirdly strict form you seem to propose?
But maybe I need to reread second paragraph of the article one more time?