In JavaScript, some built-in types (numbers, strings) are immutable, but custom objects are generally mutable.
So, it matters not whether you've declared them as const or not, what matters is whether they are custom objects (like in your example) or simple numbers/strings. The latter are obviously immutable whether you use const or not.
And even with your custom object, you can make individual attributes immutable like this (again, const doesn't matter here):
My point is that there are people out there still saying "const is intrinsically immutable". While it's not. As for objects >> Protecting objects from manipulation
I would argue that const is intrinsically immutable. Posing the argument that making a reference immutable, but the data inside is not, is not relevant. Granted. It would be nice if this were default behavior, but knowing why the data inside is not const is important.
This flows down to the engine that js is running on in lower level language land, and that land explains this concept of why well. It should not be a debate.
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.
That's just because of the nature of JavaScript, that's how it is.
So, it matters not whether you've declared them as const or not, what matters is whether they are custom objects (like in your example) or simple numbers/strings. The latter are obviously immutable whether you use const or not.
And even with your custom object, you can make individual attributes immutable like this (again, const doesn't matter here):
So when you do this, it'll be silently ignored since the person object is now immutable:
This is irrespective of whether you defined
personaslet,constorvar!My point is that there are people out there still saying "const is intrinsically immutable". While it's not. As for objects >> Protecting objects from manipulation
I would argue that const is intrinsically immutable. Posing the argument that making a reference immutable, but the data inside is not, is not relevant. Granted. It would be nice if this were default behavior, but knowing why the data inside is not const is important.
This flows down to the engine that js is running on in lower level language land, and that land explains this concept of why well. It should not be a debate.