I'm not sure if I'm going into how the underlying structures work in any detail - understanding at this level is pretty fundamental to understanding the logic in programming languages like JavaScript which follow this paradigm.
As to an error, it's statements like this: "In this example, newObject is a reference to initialObject. So whenever we get or set data on either of these objects it is also applied to the other object. This is useful in a lot of different ways, but not great for immutability." You've implied that newObject and initialObject are two different objects, when actually they are two references to the same object (and in addition, initialObject isn't an object either; newObject and initialObject just reference the same actual object). There may be a few other places when you've conflated references and objects - I'm currently on a bus and it's hard to type things.
Fair enough. I can see the confusion there. Though It’s a deliberate conflation to make the point easier to understand. It’s not intended to mislead at all.
I'm not sure if I'm going into how the underlying structures work in any detail - understanding at this level is pretty fundamental to understanding the logic in programming languages like JavaScript which follow this paradigm.
As to an error, it's statements like this: "In this example, newObject is a reference to initialObject. So whenever we get or set data on either of these objects it is also applied to the other object. This is useful in a lot of different ways, but not great for immutability." You've implied that newObject and initialObject are two different objects, when actually they are two references to the same object (and in addition, initialObject isn't an object either; newObject and initialObject just reference the same actual object). There may be a few other places when you've conflated references and objects - I'm currently on a bus and it's hard to type things.
Fair enough. I can see the confusion there. Though It’s a deliberate conflation to make the point easier to understand. It’s not intended to mislead at all.
I fear that may be a fools economy, because that conflation perpetuates the misunderstanding that led to you writing this post in the first place!
You could be right. I have a feeling there’s another post in here somewhere.