I don't think having to use .get() for property access is equatable to "readable names". It is also not the reason for this in the library you mentioned AFAIK,

I don't think having to use .get() for property access is equatable to "readable names". It is also not the reason for this in the library you mentioned AFAIK, although I haven't used it so far. I think the reason for the .get() is that it is not achievable to have deep immutability in JS with regular property access (Object.freeze is not "deep" either). That aside, I agree it's not ergonomic, but it has nothing to do with readable names. And converting a string to an integer is not possible with a native JS operator intended for this purpose, so I'd prefer Math.trunc any day. Regarding the immutable.js thing, the Records/Tuples TC39 proposal aims for a syntax and runtime addition to allow immutable objects with regular dot property access.