I guess const makes (more) sense in large teams that work on large code bases (emphasis on I guess). I would like to see some practical evidence. If somebody was in a concrete situation where const saved them (and their team) from a nasty bug, I would like to read about it, so that I can get a feel of const’s usefulness.
If I started using const, I would have to decide every time when I declare a new variable, whether or not it should be re-assignable. This mental task seems unnecessary and annoying to me. I would rather spend my brain power on the actual problems that I’m trying to solve in my code.
Full-time web dev; JS lover since 2002; CSS fanatic. #CSSIsAwesome
I try to stay up with new web platform features. Web feature you don't understand? Tell me! I'll write an article!
He/him
Since I've switched to using const, I find that I almost never use let. In fact, the rarity of let makes it stand out in the code when it is used; it feels like a beacon to anyone reading the code that this variable is special, it's going to be updated later.
But I almost never update variables anyway. There are basically two cases where I use it:
In an old-fashioned for (let i=0; i<num; i++) loop
In a case where I'm setting the value inside of a block, either a complicated conditional situation or a try ... catch situation:
Full-time web dev; JS lover since 2002; CSS fanatic. #CSSIsAwesome
I try to stay up with new web platform features. Web feature you don't understand? Tell me! I'll write an article!
He/him
Yeah, the difference seems to be that in a for ... of loop like this:
for(constthingofmyThings){/*...*/}
you're essentially grabbing an iterator at the start of the loop, i.e. myThingsIter = myThings[Symbol.iterator](), then at the beginning of each loop running const thing = myThingsIter.next(). It seems to desugar to something like this:
You're always assigning a whole new value to the loop variable as opposed to modifying the loop variable as is typical in a classic for (let i=0; i<n; i++) loop.
Really the only reason you need a let in that loop is because you're reassigning the value with i++, equivalent to i = i+. In theory you can use a const if you're doing something super unusual, like using an object as your loop variable and modifying a property of it:
I don't know why anyone would ever want something like this, and there would undoubtedly be cleaner ways to write the code, but it works. You're never reassigning o, so no problem with it being a const.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I guess
const
makes (more) sense in large teams that work on large code bases (emphasis on I guess). I would like to see some practical evidence. If somebody was in a concrete situation whereconst
saved them (and their team) from a nasty bug, I would like to read about it, so that I can get a feel ofconst
’s usefulness.If I started using
const
, I would have to decide every time when I declare a new variable, whether or not it should be re-assignable. This mental task seems unnecessary and annoying to me. I would rather spend my brain power on the actual problems that I’m trying to solve in my code.Since I've switched to using
const
, I find that I almost never uselet
. In fact, the rarity oflet
makes it stand out in the code when it is used; it feels like a beacon to anyone reading the code that this variable is special, it's going to be updated later.But I almost never update variables anyway. There are basically two cases where I use it:
for (let i=0; i<num; i++)
looptry ... catch
situation:Neither of those are very common in my code, so I basically never use
let
.I'm glad to hear you're on the same page as me! I like the shining beacon analogy.
For me, both those examples often warrant extracting behavior to some helper function, but I understand how you're using them there, too.
That sounds like a solid approach. I’m surprised that
const
works fine in (the header of)for
-of
statements but not infor
.Yeah, the difference seems to be that in a
for ... of
loop like this:you're essentially grabbing an iterator at the start of the loop, i.e.
myThingsIter = myThings[Symbol.iterator]()
, then at the beginning of each loop runningconst thing = myThingsIter.next()
. It seems to desugar to something like this:You're always assigning a whole new value to the loop variable as opposed to modifying the loop variable as is typical in a classic
for (let i=0; i<n; i++)
loop.Really the only reason you need a
let
in that loop is because you're reassigning the value withi++
, equivalent toi = i+
. In theory you can use aconst
if you're doing something super unusual, like using an object as your loop variable and modifying a property of it:I don't know why anyone would ever want something like this, and there would undoubtedly be cleaner ways to write the code, but it works. You're never reassigning
o
, so no problem with it being aconst
.