Yep. In those cases, I still prefer let personally even though I know the variable itself will not be re-assigned, kind of as an indicator that I expect the referenced object to be mutated.
Coming from a background that includes some experience with C / C++, `const` here works as I expect it to. I'd prefer `const` even for the object reference case: I get errors on reassignment this way, and presumably it makes additional optimizations possible. To each their own, I suppose :)
There's also `Object.defineProperty()`, `Object.freeze()` for more control over mutability.
