I'm *this close* to holding a company meeting about when we should use 'let' vs 'const'.
-
-
Replying to @pamelafox
I’m so sorry!
@wycats warned me const was a mistake for this exact reason and I didn’t take it seriously enough. One of my main ES6 regrets.3 replies 13 retweets 45 likes -
I still don't get why not to use const for everything unless you explicitly need to rebind the name for some reason.
2 replies 0 retweets 21 likes -
Let’s take this off poor
@pamelafox’s mentions, y’all. She’s suffering enough with this needless debate within her own company!1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @littlecalculist @wycats
Sure, but am I reading your reply correctly in that the regret is `let` vs `const` is a source of debate? I still don't get it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Your preferred style is indeed a popular one, possibly the most popular one. However IMO it leads to considerably worse code. 1/
2 replies 3 retweets 7 likes -
People tend to think "letting readers know whether my local binding is mutated is important enough to signal with a keyword." I disagree 2/
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
I think is where folks def disagree. I personally see a ton of value here since I've paved over `path` so many times. Might be due to different experiences. I personally don't see value in types and many devs would shoot me down :-p
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
You don't need to signal w/ a keyword because it's trivial to see visually and static analyze. What you want signaled is "plz don't mutate"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.