>For loops do not have guarantees about in-place mutation; Every modern language has a `for elem in range` construct, giving exactly that guarantee, as long as

>For loops do not have guarantees about in-place mutation; Every modern language has a `for elem in range` construct, giving exactly that guarantee, as long as the element isn't a pointer. Besides, I neither want nor need such a guarantee. There are many scenarios where in-place mutation is exactly what I want to do in a loop, and I don't want to fight the language, aka. my craftsmans tool, to do it, just because it imposes an arbitrary restriction on what I can or cannot do. Is this a potential source of bugs? Of course it is. That's why I have tests, code reviews and debuggers. And besides, nothing prevents me from doing the functional approach in languages like Golang, Python or Julia *if I want to*. I simply refuse to use languages that that force a paradigm on my code. This is true not only for "pure functional" languages, but also Java, which wants me to use OOP everywhere. To me, paradigms are tools. They need to be there when I need them, and get not get in my way when I don't.