5 ms·

> const o = {}; o.prop = "something"; // oh, actually, o.prop = 5; Care to share some examples / use cases where using these language characteristics can resul

• stephenr 6y ago
  I mean... let’s keep in mind we’re talking about a language and community that uses the keyword “const” to define mutable objects. Logic went out the window a long fucking time ago.
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > we’re talking about a language and community that uses the keyword “const” to define mutable objects. Nope they use const to define immutable references, the same way that val/var define mutable references. If you don't understand the difference between mutability of a reference and mutability of the value it refers to, JavaScript is far from the only language you’ll have a problem with.
    • stephenr 6y ago
      I understand the difference. The problem is that you can completely change the shape of the object that’s “const”, so it’s hardly fucking constant is it.
      • dragonwriter 6y ago
        > I understand the difference No, you clearly don't. > The problem is that you can completely change the shape of the object that’s “const” “const” is not a feature of objects, but of the reference to a value (which may or may not be an object). You can't change the reference at all (unlike a var/let references), hence it is constant. Object immutability is orthogonal to reference immutability and is attained by Object.freeze().
      • alcover 6y ago
        dragonwriter is right. In C for ex. const int* p means the value pointed at can't change, but int* const p means you can't reaffect p