Old time javascript "foo = {}; foo.bar = 123;" . When passing foo as an argument to a function, it was passed as a pointer. In the old days javascript to create an object copy was cumbersome "foo_copy = JSON.stringify (foo);". By modifying the code accordingly, it was quite safe to rely on adding the foo attribute, which will be available in the called functions. Modern javascript makes it very easy to create a copy of an object "const {not_my_variable1, not_my_variable2} = foo;". But when I changed the code I wrote "foo.bar = 123;" and in modern javascript I have to check every call to a function to see if a copy of the object has been created and if there I also have to type an extra "bar" variable so that it can be passed to the next function.
This is an unwanted side effect for the syntax sugar.
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.
What are you referring to?
Old time javascript "foo = {}; foo.bar = 123;" . When passing foo as an argument to a function, it was passed as a pointer. In the old days javascript to create an object copy was cumbersome "foo_copy = JSON.stringify (foo);". By modifying the code accordingly, it was quite safe to rely on adding the foo attribute, which will be available in the called functions. Modern javascript makes it very easy to create a copy of an object "const {not_my_variable1, not_my_variable2} = foo;". But when I changed the code I wrote "foo.bar = 123;" and in modern javascript I have to check every call to a function to see if a copy of the object has been created and if there I also have to type an extra "bar" variable so that it can be passed to the next function.
This is an unwanted side effect for the syntax sugar.