could you stop saying redux, in my other comment I said the solution could be anything from react's setState to old-style encapsulation.
The point is, it's kind of odd that someone'd put mutating states in their tutorial proudly as a "feature". It's a thing that you do very conservatively at best.
> it's kind of odd that someone'd put mutating states in their tutorial proudly as a "feature"
Mutating state is actually the de-facto standard across most of the industry. Look at Vue or iOS or Android or Unity or Rails or J2EE... People literally use ORMs to make things more mutable than SQL.
Yes, you can use React setState, but surely it's not lost on you that this is wrapping over a lot of mutable operations too? Worth mentioning as well that setState semantics have some amount of complexity that is attributable to mutability leaking out of the immutability abstraction (e.g. the callback argument, what happens when things like multiple calls to setState occur synchronously, etc). This is the "curse of abstraction" that comes when you are trying to implement semantics that don't exist natively and the abstraction themselves have semantic weaknesses due to the chicken-and-egg problem of the required semantics not existing natively.
again with the mechanical definition of mutability. Ok "controlled" is the word, as I mentioned in other comment state encapsulation (which ORM is) is another solution for this.
The point is, it's kind of odd that someone'd put mutating states in their tutorial proudly as a "feature". It's a thing that you do very conservatively at best.