What I mean is, if one does: const obj1 = { a: 32, b: 42 }; function foo(ref) { ref.a = 0; } foo(obj1); console.log(obj1); in JavaScript, one is just

What I mean is, if one does: const obj1 = { a: 32, b: 42 }; function foo(ref) { ref.a = 0; } foo(obj1); console.log(obj1); in JavaScript, one is just using the variable name as a "holder" of some value. One doesn't have to designate that that variable is being passed by reference. If one wanted to actually copy that object, they'd have to devise a mechanism to do so. In Rust, if someone doesn't specify, using the & symbol, that something is a reference, it'll end up moving the value. Basically all I was saying is one can not approach writing Rust with a Java/JavaScript mindset. (That a variable is just a bucket holding a value). Care needs to be taken when referencing a variable as it may need to be moved, copied/cloned or referenced. In the case of copying, another memory allocation is done. So if someone approaches Rust from the standpoint of "this word represents a value, and I'm going to use it all over the place", they can find themselves blindly allocating memory.