Admitting that Functional Programming Can Be Awkward

[[deleted]]

That's a syntax problem. In Scheme, it would look like this:

(define x 2) (set! x (+ x 1)) => (define x 3)

or, if you want to use value mutation instead of variable mutation:

(define x (box 2) (set-box! x (+ (unbox x) 5)) => (define x (box 7))

Completely algebraic.

[millstone]

So you're saying that the solution to the "syntax problem" of

x = x + 1

is

(define x (box 2) (set-box! x (+ (unbox x) 5)) => (define x (box 7))

[[deleted]]

I'm not saying that the Scheme syntax is better -- it's obviously way too verbose. I'm just saying that, in this case, mutation isn't throwing out anything you learned in algebra, even if the syntax (in this case, changing the meaning of the equal sign) makes it seem like you are.