“Shallow immutability” is not just a “caveat” — it’s a complete abuse of the word “immutability”.

If you can in-place modify the interior of a so-called immutable value in any way (possibly excepting code within some kind of “unsafe” blocks), it is by definition not immutable. Immutability is a pure, all or nothing kind of thing.

That you are trying to present immutability as synonymous with C++ style “const”ness perhaps reinforces the parents’ post that Nim is not friendly or even aware of the functional paradigm of programming.

But unlike others, I think it’s okay that it doesn’t support immutable variables. It certainly doesn’t outright condemn the language. However, let’s not pretend it’s something that it’s not.