I didn't say that it does have exhaustive immutability support. I said the value of it is known. They wouldn't have added the (limited) support that they did if they didn't understand this. The community wouldn't have built innumerable tools for immutability if they didn't understand the benefits. And in any case, you can't just shove a whole different model of handling objects into a thirty year old language that didn't see any truly structural changes until ten years ago.
> I didn't say that it does have exhaustive immutability support
seal and freeze in js are not 'immutability'. You said what you said - "JavaScript itself has built in immutability features (seal, freeze)".
I corrected you, don't feel bad about it. It's totally fine to not to know some things and it's completely normal to be wrong on occasion. We are all here to learn, not to argue who's toy truck is better. Learning means going from state of not knowing to the state of TIL.
> you can't just shove a whole different model of handling objects into a thirty year old language
Clojurescript did. Like 14-15 years ago or so. And it's not so dramatically difficult to use. Far more simpler than Javascript, in fact.
I am not being pedantic, there's critical fundamental conceptual difference that has real implications for how people write and reason about code.
There's performance reasoning, different level of guarantees, and entirely different programming model.
When someone hears "JS has built-in immutability features", they might think, "great, why do I even need to look at Haskell, Elixir, Clojure, if I have all the FP features I need right here?". Conflating these concepts helps no one - it's like saying: "wearing a raincoat means you're waterproof". Okay, you're technically not 100% wrong, but it's so misleading that it becomes effectively wrong for anyone trying to understand the actual concept.
