[staticassertion]

I don't think they're referring to multiple threads when they say different part of the program, but instead that you should be able to reason about mutation locally.

For example, if I pass an argument into a function, it may be 'unexpected' that the argument is mutated - I can not reason about that mutation locally (unless it's very explicit or a known idiom such as push).

However, within a function, avoiding mutation seems pointless as you should have no trouble reasoning about it. At some point you really are just throwing away performance with significantly diminishing benefits.

Shared mutability across threads is definitely a huge pain in the ass though.

In the end I think we're all just trying to reduce the state space we have to manage in our heads when we read and write code, and removing mutability reduces that space.

[Scarbutt]

However, within a function, avoiding mutation seems pointless as you should have no trouble reasoning about it. At some point you really are just throwing away performance with significantly diminishing benefits

Ok, but here you are doing all the manual work of creating a copy as to avoid mutating the arg/returning a new one and, it may be less peformant because of whole copy, knowing your programming language automtically defaults and does this for you in a performant way is a big win for reducing cognitive overhead in large programs.

[pdimitar]

I don't disagree, but the way Erlang (and thus Elixir) does it is that you get a small stack space to contain your immutable data -- and when you unwind the function the stack just gets thrown away instead of involving the GC which I'd argue is still plenty fast.

I do agree that copying stuff around is generally expensive. I am just unsure how expensive it is in smaller functions that aren't called 10_000 times a second.