IMO the article's conclusion is wrong. We should indeed use `const`, and we should indeed use it to communicate. But the thing we should use it to communicate is different than what the article proposes.

We should use `const` to communicate that we don't intend to reassign or mutate the variable. And we should do that by default unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise.

I know it can't be fully enforced, because JavaScript is designed for mutability of objects by default. But it is an implementation style that is almost always achievable in plain ES6 without too much trouble, and it makes more reliable software that's easier to reason about.