DEV Community

Discussion on: `at` coming soon to ECMAScript

View post

Replies for: So we still have to use .length like in the classic way for (let i = arr.length - 1 ; i >= 0; i--) { console.log(arr[i]); } Enter fu...

 
hisuwh profile image
Henry Ing-Simmons •

You're right. I never use classic for loops anymore really. Too used to writing:

for (const item of arr) {
    // ...
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

I agree though. Don't see the point of at. Equally if you wanted to iterate the loop in reverse:

for (const item of arr.slice().reverse()) {
   // ...
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
 
laurieontech profile image
Laurie •

They gave you an example. You really don’t need to “correct” it.

 
edo78 profile image
Federico "Edo" Granata •

What's wrong with that? I saw that he already edited it because he used "0" as a starting point instead of "1", so I thought he would like a fix.

 
laurieontech profile image
Laurie •

Because they're not wrong. Let is just as valid as const from the perspective of the code. Without larger context it's just a preference. And you understood the example they were kind enough to provide just fine. Your response was to make yourself feel smart.

 
edo78 profile image
Federico "Edo" Granata •

Maybe I'm missing somethig as english isn't my first language but using const is wrong.
Javascript prevent you from reassigning a value to a const throwing an error TypeError: Assignment to constant variable.

I was the first one asking a question because I know that I don't know everything and I want to learn so I think others can appreciate if I reciprocate