Quite a lot of different people have been on the same trail of thought. Gary Bernhardt's formulation of a "functional core, imperative shell" seems to be the most voiced.
"Imperative shell" that wraps and uses your "functional core".. The result of this is that the shell has fewer paths, but more dependencies. The core contains no dependencies, but encapsulates the different logic paths. So we’re encapsulating dependencies on one side, and business logic on the other side. Or put another way, the way to figure out the separation is by doing as much as you can without mutation, and then encapsulating the mutation separately. Functional core — Many fast unit tests. Imperative shell — Few integration tests