off-topic but why do you use 'let' instead of 'const'? In royal.ts you do that all the time even though you variables don't change! Is there a reason for that?
I have no idea why they did it, but I have argued for quite some time that const has very little practical value, because its effect is always lexical and local.
To demonstrate that this is so, I suggest that we can write a processor that converts all lets to consts where possible. I also demonstrate that this is so by asking, "What bug will const catch that our tests will not catch?"
_Immutable Data_, on the other hand, is marvellous. Immutability has nonlocal effects, and it is not something that can be trivially verified.
I agree with your assessment, but for me it is a message from the programmer to the reader. Hey this value will not be re-assigned during the following scope block. If I see a let, I know I must be careful.
Of course this doesn't apply to properties of objects ... which is a pity!
To demonstrate that this is so, I suggest that we can write a processor that converts all lets to consts where possible. I also demonstrate that this is so by asking, "What bug will const catch that our tests will not catch?"
_Immutable Data_, on the other hand, is marvellous. Immutability has nonlocal effects, and it is not something that can be trivially verified.