> Caveat: for reference types, immutability is shallow (you cannot change the reference but you can mutate the reference content). “Shallow immutability” is no

> Caveat: for reference types, immutability is shallow (you cannot change the reference but you can mutate the reference content). “Shallow immutability” is not just a “caveat” — it’s a complete abuse of the word “immutability”. If you can in-place modify the interior of a so-called immutable value in any way (possibly excepting code within some kind of “unsafe” blocks), it is by definition not immutable. Immutability is a pure, all or nothing kind of thing. That you are trying to present immutability as synonymous with C++ style “const”ness perhaps reinforces the parents’ post that Nim is not friendly or even aware of the functional paradigm of programming. But unlike others, I think it’s okay that it doesn’t support immutable variables. It certainly doesn’t outright condemn the language. However, let’s not pretend it’s something that it’s not.