Відео

well, waiting for the immutable data structures proposal, records & tuples. stage 2...

You are absolutely right, I don’t understand why someone would say otherwise.

I still use vars and closures.

I use some sort of runtime generated Universal identification string, its 32 bytes consisting of: 8 bytes is a timestamp of when the program started, 8 bytes is the timestamp when the ID is generated, 8 bytes for a machine identification, 4 bytes for an incremental in-ram number that is randomly initialized, 4 bytes of random number. The timestamp values are in .Net "Ticks"; The result 32 bytes are converted to Base36 and that's my Runtime Id, I have never had collision in any of the stress tests that I could make.

In C++ you can absolutely change both the memory that a pointer points to, as well as the address of the pointer. There's a whole can of worms about `const int* someName` vs `int* const someName` vs `const int* const someName` vs `int const* someName` which is pretty annoying to deal with. The older I get, the more I appreciate a really good implementation of const-ness, and in C++ we're closing in on that with constexpr and consteval

I'm definitely on team const, but my linter auto fixing this can be annoying when you still writing the code.

Theo you want to start the flame war over this?

title: `const` was a mistake duration: 31 minutes you are perfect

Ryan's talk was clearly intended to be humorous, especially invoking ChatGPT as an authority (given that the output was clearly edited). Not distinguishing between integrals and ref's makes it an in joke for people sufficiently knowledgable about the language. Using screaming case is a hold over from when editors lacked tooltip context to understand whether, in a language like C, the symbol was a macro or a variable. Screaming case is rarely useful beyond TOUCH_THIS_AND_DIE or UNTIL_HELL_FREEZES_OVER semantics.

Ryan is a person who tries to be funny in public but fails because he is not funny but annoying.

18:00 was really peak of programmer's comedy 😅

I agree with Theo and disagree with Ryan

Damn, your explanation with a pointer and double-pointer at 15:24 was spot on, it finally clicked with me. Before this, this whole discussion seemed like a purely cultural/philosophical debate about religion and metaphysics. It still does to me, but now I feel like I actually know what the underlying thing is

Looks like half of JavaScript was a mistake at this moment

I can't believe what bullshit these js peasants argue about while there are actual problems in the world that need solving... like west-const vs-east const... ;)

Worst take 2024.

lmao "const=*, let=**" completely just explained this entire debate to me and I've been confused about it for several years. Holy crap I feel bad for all of us that learned JS as a first language. I gotta learn some C ...

const int * const ptr;

I get what are you saying, but I really like Dart implementation For different variable purpouse they have different modifier: 1. const -> real Constant (It forces you to have const threw the whole tree) 2. final -> js const - not changable, but inside modifiable 3. var -> js let (it does not have js var) But as it is said in DreamBread to be able to change it, but to have like array constant you woud do it like: var arr = const ['A', 'B', 'C'];

100% agree. I come from C++ and moved to frontend development and I will always default to const if I have no INTENTION to change what it points to. I use let rarely and that becomes even more rare the more we move towards fluent array transformations.

Great video. Id be interested to hear your thoughts on git commit messages: past tense vs present tense.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good! So const is maybe misnamed? So what? It's still useful for the reasons Theo said.

The pronunciation argument is just a skill issue of English speakers. :P

As far as I understand it, you're correct that const isn't true immutability, but rather just acts as a guard rail around a piece of memory (in the heap) telling the interpreter "no, bad interpreter" whenever you try to mutate it after assignment. In effect, that often tends to translate into "no, bad junior developer. Fix that before you deploy." In the lawless realm of common JS pre-TypeScript, such guard rails seem like they would have been a welcome anchor in the maelstrom, but I wasn't there for that. I just started learning JS like 3 years ago, and I've found const useful just in solo programming to make sure I didn't do anything stupid after I figured something important out.

wtf DreamBerd is crazy. can't see that being useful for anything

Just imagine const objects, arrays and functions are pointers. It all makes sense if you think it that way.

Wouldn’t this solve the problem: ‘const’: For constants / freezed objects ‘let’: For immutable references ‘var’: For mutable references

One-liner for replacing the brands array: brands.splice(0, brands.length, "a", "b", "c", "d");

Why is this even an argument? You use const because it's the closest thing to immutable that Javascript offers. When Javascript offers immutable, then use that.

The fact it allows for mutations doesn't mean it's useless, it's still a very helpful tool when reading the code. It is dumb that it behaves that way but I'm guessing there's some weird esoteric JS-BS reason that's the case.

after learning the hard way, we got a rule on work, we can't use var or let and only const, why well, when you don't reassign variables you get code you read from top to bottom, without crazy things in loop where the code do one thing and then if something next time if some thing else then it do that. this is hard to understand and read, making that kind of code full of bugs, so now with only const no one make that kind of crazy code, and we half the amount of bugs, and we make more features and look less in the black hole of despair. in the start people think you can't do stuff without let, but you are wrong, you are just thinking of the wrong way to fix that problem, there is always a simple way with reduce or filter to make the loops only do one pass, you can then reduce the result again and again, so each pass will fix one of the problems you used let for.

I'd like to point out TypeScript's `enum`. I know it isn't ideal but to be honest I find myself using it quite often for one-level deep objects who values don't change... it does exactly what you'd think it will and it solves about 90% of the use cases when `const` isn't constant enough. Of course there still remains the case of arrays, but we could, at some point, even come up with a 4th declaration statement... not ideal but personally I very much prefer explicit over implicit.

yea. i'll use var.

Lol I still like to use Var sometimes so that I can use a block scoped variable when needed.

it's a multiparadigm language and the keyword is CONST not IMUT, it was never supposed to behave like IMUT, I don't know where these guys get the idea that const has to be imutable. Const means that the reference is constant. I agree with you here, LET and CONST have more communication value to us if we use const to indicate that a value is not being reassigned.

Sorry, but in his presentation, did he say “I won’t tell you what to do” before telling us what to do? Thanks, Theo. I’m fully in the `const` camp, and not because of AirBnb.

const should've been named final

Theo, thanks that you give same thoughts that I have)

What I think many people are missing in the imperative world is that FP programmers don't need to freeze objects or protect themselves from mutations. We simply don't do it. If we do it, it's in a tiny and controlled scope. The mental load is just so much lower when you do that. When a FP programmer looks for an immutable data structure, it is not to prevent mutations. They don't do mutations, it is to have an efficient data structure, with structural sharing for example

This is why most online videogame like world of warcraft have maintenance and resets and big releases on tuesdays. Recently lots of online games have been releasing on friday night because of marketing wanting the biggest possible playcount. This compounds into higher traffic than expected, AND all the devs are on weekend.

The amount of ignorance right at the start of the talk 🫣🙄 .. ok good bye internets

People who complain about const "not working" with objects just don't know what const actually does. Const prevents you from reassigning a pointer. That's all it does.

Yes we don't really make anything immutable (except in rare cases). But there's a reason for that. And it's the same reason why libraries doing anything at all implicitly is very much frowned upon (adding custom methods to prototypes for example). Const is not for JavaScript to prevent the value from changing, but to prevent you from changing it.

js devs got so few real problems that they keep creating their own

Did you just write "return void" and then "void" just to see if that would satsify "void" return type? Why am I subscribed here?

functions are the only "Object" that is constant, as the signature does not change ever

Strongly agree.

I side with Theo on this one...

The more times I'm watching the Let Me Be talk, the more I think it's more like a satire.

Here's my take as a total beginner who is struggling to learn javascript at a senior age. Never knew when or where to use const vs. let. I don't know anything about mutation or that stuff. But what summarizes the whole video for me was your remark "const* and let**". I don't know anything about C++ and memory pointers either. But I find it easier to learn and "think" programming when concepts are explained in a very basic and primitive way. Everything starts to build up from there. Regardless that's it would be easier for me to use "let" almost everywhere, from now on I really understand the difference between both and I can think of both in a very solid way. Of course, as I mentioned before, this is the view of a newbie. Thanks for this video!