> That doesn't look "functional" at all. Yes... because he ditched it. And further - there isn't really anything wrong with modifying an object. Functional p

> That doesn't look "functional" at all. Yes... because he ditched it. And further - there isn't really anything wrong with modifying an object. Functional programs are nice because they remove lots of extraneous state, but there are many situations where you still have to track state somewhere - doing it in a contained object that is changed is fine. The issue (particularly in JS) is when you allow assignment by reference value, and not by copy - in that case modifying an object can be dangerous because other parts of the code may be holding onto the same reference, and you've accidentally introduced subtle shared state. Ideally - all users would be aware, and would make sure that assignment only happens with a call to something like copy()/clone() but the language doesn't really have the tooling to enforce this (unlike many other languages ex: c++/Rust/others)