Programming Fundamentals Questions

Direct answer
A pure function's output depends only on its inputs, and calling it produces no observable effect outside its own return value, no mutation of external state, no I/O, no reliance on anything that could change between calls. A function with side effects does at least one of those things: it might mutate a variable outside its own scope, write to a file, or return a different result for the same input depending on some external state.

Structured elaboration

• Same input, same output, always: this is the defining property. math.sqrt(4) is pure, it returns 2.0 every single time. A function that reads the current time, a global counter, or a mutable default argument that accumulates across calls is not pure, its output can differ across calls even with identical arguments.
• No observable effects outside the return value: a pure function doesn't print, doesn't write to a database, doesn't mutate an object passed into it, doesn't increment a counter defined outside itself. If you could delete every call to it (assuming nothing used the return value) and the rest of the program's behavior would be unchanged, that's a strong sign of purity; if deleting a call changes behavior beyond 'the return value is no longer available', something impure happened inside it.
• Why purity matters for testing: a pure function needs no setup beyond its arguments and no teardown, you call it, you assert on the return value, done. An impure function's test has to also arrange whatever external state it reads, and verify whatever external state it mutates, which multiplies both the setup complexity and the number of ways the test can be wrong or flaky.
• Why purity matters for parallel execution: if a function only reads its inputs and produces a return value, calling it concurrently from multiple threads for different inputs is automatically safe, there's no shared mutable state for two calls to race on. An impure function that mutates shared state needs explicit synchronization (locks) to be safe under concurrency, or it will produce wrong results or crashes under load in a way that's notoriously hard to reproduce.

Worked example

def add_tax_pure(price, rate):
    return price * (1 + rate)          # no side effects

total_calls = {"count": 0}
def add_tax_impure(price, rate):
    total_calls["count"] += 1          # side effect: mutates external state
    return price * (1 + rate)

Verified: add_tax_pure(100, 0.08) returns 108.0 every time it's called, and calling it twice does not change anything else observable in the program. add_tax_impure(100, 0.08) returns the same 108.0, but after two calls total_calls["count"] has become 2, a change visible to any OTHER code that also reads total_calls, which is exactly the kind of hidden coupling purity avoids: two unrelated pieces of code that both happen to call add_tax_impure now silently affect each other's view of total_calls.

Trade-offs & pitfalls
Purity isn't free, and most real programs need SOME side effects (writing output, updating a database) somewhere; the useful discipline is not 'eliminate all side effects everywhere' but 'push side effects to the edges of the system and keep the core computation (the actual business logic, the actual data transformation) pure', so the large majority of the code gets the testing and concurrency benefits, and the necessarily-impure parts are small, isolated, and easy to reason about individually.

Direct answer
The four pillars are encapsulation (bundling data with the methods that operate on it, and hiding internal state behind a controlled interface), abstraction (exposing only what a caller needs, hiding how it's implemented), inheritance (a class reusing and specializing another class's behavior), and polymorphism (code that works against a common interface behaving correctly for many concrete types).

Structured elaboration

• Encapsulation: internal fields are kept private (or convention-marked, e.g. Python's leading underscore) and reached only through methods. Benefit: you can change the internal representation later without breaking every caller. Pitfall: exposing a mutable internal collection directly (a public list field) defeats encapsulation even if the field itself is 'private', because callers can still reach in and mutate it.
• Abstraction: a caller depends on a small, stable surface (an interface, an abstract base class, or just a documented method contract) rather than on implementation detail. Benefit: implementations can be swapped freely. Pitfall: a 'leaky abstraction' that forces callers to know implementation detail anyway (e.g. an interface that only makes sense if you know it's backed by a SQL table).
• Inheritance: a subclass gets a base class's fields and methods and can override behavior. Benefit: real code reuse for a genuine is-a relationship. Pitfall: inheritance used purely for code reuse (not a real is-a relationship) creates fragile coupling, since a change in the base class can silently break every subclass; composition (a class holding an instance of another class instead of inheriting from it) is often the safer default for anything beyond a shallow, genuinely-is-a hierarchy.
• Polymorphism: calling code written against a base type or interface automatically gets the right behavior for whatever concrete subtype is actually passed in, without an if/else on type. Benefit: adding a new type means adding a new class, not editing every call site (this is most of what the 'open/closed' principle (a design should be open to new behavior but closed to editing existing, working code) is about). Pitfall: relying on type-checking (isinstance) instead of polymorphism reintroduces the very branching the pattern exists to remove.

Worked example

class MetricCollector:
    def __init__(self, name):
        self._name = name          # encapsulation: internal state, reached via methods
        self._samples = []
    def record(self, value):
        self._samples.append(value)
    def summary(self):
        return f"{self._name}: n={len(self._samples)}"

class LatencyCollector(MetricCollector):   # inheritance
    def summary(self):                     # polymorphism: overrides base behavior
        if not self._samples:
            return f"{self._name}: no samples"
        avg = sum(self._samples) / len(self._samples)
        return f"{self._name}: avg={avg:.2f}ms over {len(self._samples)} samples"

Calling .summary() on a plain MetricCollector gives "requests: n=2"; calling the exact same method name on a LatencyCollector after recording 12.0 and 18.0 gives "p50_latency: avg=15.00ms over 2 samples" (verified: (12.0 + 18.0) / 2 = 15.00). Code that only knows it has a MetricCollector and calls .summary() gets the right behavior either way, that's the polymorphism.

Trade-offs & pitfalls
The pillars are not equally load-bearing in modern code: encapsulation and abstraction are used constantly and rarely controversial, while deep inheritance hierarchies are increasingly avoided in favor of composition ('composition over inheritance') once a hierarchy goes past one or two levels, because each additional layer makes behavior harder to predict from any single class definition. A senior answer should name that tension rather than presenting a 4-item inheritance-friendly hierarchy as the goal in itself.

Direct answer
Plain assignment doesn't copy anything, it just gives a second name to the same object. A shallow copy creates a new outer container but reuses references to the same nested objects inside it, so mutating a nested element through either the original or the shallow copy is visible in both. A deep copy recursively copies every nested object too, giving you a fully independent structure.

Structured elaboration

• Assignment (b = a): a and b are now two names for the exact same object; b is a is True. There is no 'original' versus 'copy', they're the same thing.
• Shallow copy (copy.copy(a), or list(a), or a[:] for a list): creates a genuinely new outer object (b is a is now False), but for every element that is itself a mutable object (a nested list, a dict, a custom object), the copy holds a reference to the SAME nested object, not a copy of it (b[0] is a[0] is True).
• Deep copy (copy.deepcopy(a)): recursively walks the structure and makes a new copy of every nested mutable object too, so nothing is shared (b[0] is a[0] is False).
• The bug shape this causes: code that shallow-copies a nested structure believing it now has an independent snapshot, then mutates the original, and the 'snapshot' silently changes too, because the shallow copy's nested elements were never actually copied.

Worked example

import copy
original = [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]]
shallow = copy.copy(original)
deep = copy.deepcopy(original)

original[0].append(999)   # mutate a NESTED element of the original

Verified results after that mutation: original == [[1, 2, 3, 999], [4, 5, 6]], shallow == [[1, 2, 3, 999], [4, 5, 6]] (the nested list was shared, so the shallow copy sees the change too), deep == [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]] (fully independent, unaffected).

A realistic version of this bug: code takes a shallow copy of a dataset as a 'before' snapshot, then runs an in-place normalization pass over the dataset:

def normalize_inplace(rows):
    for row in rows:
        total = sum(row)
        for i in range(len(row)):
            row[i] = row[i] / total if total else 0

After running normalize_inplace on the dataset, the shallow-copied 'snapshot' taken beforehand is bitwise identical to the now-normalized dataset (verified by running it: snapshot == dataset evaluates True after normalization), because normalize_inplace mutates each row list in place, and the shallow copy's rows are the SAME row objects as the original's. The 'backup' was never a backup.

Trade-offs & pitfalls
The fix depends on what you actually need: if you truly need an independent snapshot, use copy.deepcopy (accepting its cost, see the mutability discussion) or rebuild the structure by copying each nested piece explicitly. If deep-copying every row of a large dataset is too expensive, the more scalable fix is usually to stop mutating in place at all, have normalize_inplace return a new structure instead of mutating its argument, which sidesteps the shallow/deep copy question entirely by removing the shared-mutable-state pattern that created the risk.

Direct answer
Open the file using your language's scoped resource-management construct (Python's with, Java's try-with-resources), read the lines, and let that construct guarantee the file handle closes when the block exits, whether it exits normally or because an exception was raised partway through, then handle a missing file and a permissions error as distinct, expected outcomes rather than letting either crash the caller.

Structured elaboration

• Why a scoped construct instead of manual open/close: if you close the file with an ordinary line of code after the read, an exception raised during the read skips that line entirely and the handle leaks (file descriptors are a finite OS resource; leaking enough of them eventually breaks the whole process, not just this call). with/try-with-resources are sugar over exactly the try/finally pattern from the try/except/finally discussion: the close happens in the equivalent of a finally block, so it runs on every exit path, success, expected error, or unexpected error.
• Handling a missing file: catch the specific exception the platform raises for this (Python's FileNotFoundError, Java's NoSuchFileException/FileNotFoundException), and decide deliberately what the caller should see, an empty result, a re-raised application-specific error, or propagation, rather than letting a generic exception surface with no context about which file or why.
• Handling a permissions error: similarly catch PermissionError (Python) / the platform equivalent specifically, this is a genuinely different failure mode from 'file doesn't exist' (the caller might want to alert an operator rather than silently treat it as an empty result) and conflating the two loses information a caller might need to act correctly.
• Why relying on garbage collection to eventually close the handle is not good enough: even in a garbage-collected language, GC timing is not guaranteed or immediate, an unclosed handle can sit open for an unpredictable amount of time (or effectively forever, if something keeps a reference alive), during which it holds an OS resource and, for a file opened for writing, may leave buffered data unflushed. The scoped construct closes deterministically at a known point in the code, GC-triggered cleanup does not.

Worked example

def read_lines(path):
    try:
        with open(path, 'r') as f:
            return f.readlines()
    except FileNotFoundError:
        print(f"file not found: {path}, returning empty list")
        return []
    except PermissionError:
        print(f"permission denied: {path}, returning empty list")
        return []

Verified by execution: reading an existing file with lines "line1\n", "line2\n", "line3\n" returns exactly ['line1\n', 'line2\n', 'line3\n']; calling it on a path that doesn't exist returns [] without raising. A separate check confirmed the resource-closing guarantee specifically: wrapping a file object so that reading it raises mid-operation, and confirming the wrapper's close() still ran (wrapper.closed was True) even though the read itself failed, exactly the guarantee with/try-with-resources provides. The equivalent in Java is try (BufferedReader r = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(path))) { ... }, the resource declared in the try (...) parentheses is closed automatically when the block exits, by any path.

Trade-offs & pitfalls
The choice to return an empty list versus re-raising an application-specific exception on a missing/unreadable file is a real design decision, not a default: returning empty silently is convenient for the caller but can hide a real problem (a misconfigured path, a permissions regression) behind what looks like 'the file was just empty'. Whichever you choose, do it deliberately and log enough context (the path, the specific exception) that a missing file and a permissions problem are distinguishable in your logs even if the function's return type can't distinguish them for the caller.

Direct answer
The four core built-in containers split along two axes: mutability (can you change it after creation?) and whether elements need to be ordered/duplicable versus unique/hashable. A list is a mutable ordered sequence, a tuple is an immutable ordered sequence, a set is a mutable unordered collection of unique hashable elements, and a dict is a mutable unordered mapping of unique hashable keys to values.

Structured elaboration

The O(1)-average / O(n)-worst-case split for set/dict comes from hashing: normally a hash lookup goes straight to (approximately) the right bucket, but if many keys collide into the same bucket, resolving the collision degenerates toward a linear scan. list/tuple index access is O(1) because the underlying storage is one contiguous block, computing an offset from the index is arithmetic, not a search; searching a list BY VALUE (x in my_list) is O(n) because there's no shortcut, every element may need to be checked.

Worked example
Hashability is the concrete reason tuples, not lists, can be dict keys or set members: {(1, 2): 'a point'} works because a tuple's contents can't change after creation, so its hash value is stable for its lifetime; {[1, 2]: 'a point'} raises TypeError: unhashable type: 'list' because a list's contents CAN change, so Python refuses to let it serve as a hash key at all (verified: t = (1, 2, 3) then t[0] = 99 raises TypeError: 'tuple' object does not support item assignment; {1, 2, 2, 3} == {1, 2, 3}, confirming a set silently drops the duplicate 2).

Trade-offs & pitfalls
The most common mistake is choosing list by default and doing repeated x in my_list membership checks in a hot path, that's O(n) per check and O(n*m) over m checks; switching to a set for membership-only use cases is one of the cheapest performance wins available. The second is using a mutable default in a spot that implicitly needs hashability (trying to use a list as a dict key, or storing lists inside a set) and hitting a TypeError that a tuple would have avoided entirely.