Discussion on: Javascript call by value or by reference, actually by sharing

storing other references to the actual values of 1, 2, 3.

That depends as the runtime can optimize. See Elements kinds in V8. Also there are Typed Arrays which hold the actual (uniformly typed) values.

Ryan Cavanaugh

@searyanc

JavaScript performance is bananas, a thread.

Let's write a function to sum the values from a the 'val' property of each element in an array:

function sum(arr) {
let acc = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
acc += arr[i].val;
}
return acc;
}

1/10

00:01 AM - 23 Feb 2022

It is shocking that even for primitive types, the JS variable only holds a reference (address in JS) to the actual value.

Remember that the runtime is free to optimize whichever way it seems fit as long as the observable behaviour aligns with the language specification. However it is dictated that the conceptual behaviour of a value of a primitive type is that of an "immutable datum represented directly at the lowest level of the language". Immutability is easily explained with Strings; you can't change a string, you can only create a new one, so on "assignment" the let name is essentially being rebound to the new string. But Boolean, Null Undefined, Number, BigInt, and Symbol values all behave the same way by virtue of being primitive types. I seem to remember coming across some V8 source code where primitive JavaScript values (at least in some context) were represented by C++ classes.

So basically, 90%+ of the materials out there are wrong

It's a simplified mental model which mostly works and is easy to grasp for beginners.

which is wrong based on the discussion here (right?)

Again the runtime implementation isn't dictated. V8 has the "Ignition" interpreter and the "Turbofan" compiler so actual JS execution could be accomplished in very different ways depending on the level of optimization.

if that variable metaphor idea will differ in different languages (Java vs JavaScript or even others).

My metaphor isn't original. Given that in JavaScript primitive values are immutable it's unfortunate that the term "assignment" is being used as that implies PLOP (PLace-Oriented Programming), i.e. (re)placing a value inside a location giving rise to the notion of a "variable" as the value inside the location can vary. In value-oriented programming (typically practiced in functional languages)

let number = 1983;

is binding the name number to the value 1983 while

number = number * 10;

is rebinding the name number to the result of the number * 10 expression. With that terminology it is the binding that changes, not the value.

I only stumbled upon this because I got annoyed at const—until I discovered:

"The const declaration creates a read-only reference to a value. It does not mean the value it holds is immutable—just that the variable identifier cannot be reassigned."

So people keep saying that const works differently for primitive values and objects (overlooking completely that primitive values are already immutable). This is a perspective that becomes necessary because of the assignment/variable oversimplification that people learn in the beginning. The truth is much simpler:

const doesn't act on the value but on the binding—it's the binding that is constant and unchangeable. As a result the const behaviour is absolutely identical for primitive values and objects as the binding being constant does not affect the internal mutability of objects (which includes arrays).

If I don't want to touch on any details about virtual memory

I hope I conveyed that going to that level isn't actually necessary. Once you eliminate the notion of variables and assignments and replace them entirely with names and bindings, everything behaves entirely consistently. It's just that beginners material insists on starting with variables and assignments and then never adjust that initial mental model.