No, I'm talking about matching JavaScript's memory layout and memory management, indirection and sharing and all. The children field is itself a reference to a

No, I'm talking about matching JavaScript's memory layout and memory management, indirection and sharing and all. The children field is itself a reference to a collection. Reading the field creates a new reference to the same collection, and that is what the for loop holds. If func grabs parent that's fine, it's just one more reference (in the Rc sense). That collection also just holds references, and the for loop copies them out too. The trickiest bit here is the iteration state itself- you wouldn't be able to use e.g. Rust's typical slice iterator and still retain the ability to mutate the collection, but JavaScript doesn't do that either. Its iterators just have to be implemented taking the possibility of external mutation into account. The fundamental tradeoff here is that JavaScript simply puts everything behind a reference, all the time, while Rust allows you to work with objects directly. This is what makes sharing+mutation feel so simple in JavaScript- anything you can do to change the "shape" of a data structure is really only changing a reference, and leaving the old version around in case anyone else was still using it.