jasoncoon ,
@jasoncoon@leds.social avatar

OK I have to admit this argument for using let over const for most cases in JavaScript/TypeScript almost has me convinced.
I'm sure I'm going to continue to prefer const, but I see the point.
Video argument: https://www.epicweb.dev/talks/let-me-be

Screenshot from a social media thread where Dave Herman (a JS ES6 designer) states the following: Your preferred style is indeed a popular one, possibly the most popular one. However IMO it leads to considerably worse code. 1/ People tend to think "letting readers know whether my local binding is mutated is important enough to signal with a keyword." I disagree 2/ Mutation is difficult to manage *in the large* and deserves careful annotation. Const doesn't help with this. 3/ In the small, it's much less useful. It's distracting to the reader of the code to be constantly informed "this binding is not mutated" 4/ Worse, it's confusing people because it's not telling you the value is immutable, just the binding. 5/ In fact, the traditional meaning of the keyword `const` is "this *value* is a constant." I.e., deeply immutable values only. 6/ So the benefit is low, the added noise level is high, and the code doesn't say what it means. 7/7
ALT
  • Reply
  • Expand (2)
  • Collapse (2)
  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •