Once and for all: const in JavaScript is not immutable

valentinogagliardi profile image Valentino Gagliardi ・2 min read

I know that's been said hundred of times, but I still see people proclaiming (even in some JavaScript books) that const is immutable. It is not.

const in JavaScript is not immutable

In JavaScript, values can be stored in a variable with the var keyword, the most compatible way for declaring variables:

var greet = "Hello";
var year = 89;
var not = false;

I said compatible because with ECMAScript 2015 we have two other options: let and const. Older browsers may not support these new keywords and unless using a "transpiler" like Babel you may run into errors. In newer browser instead you can reap the benefits of let and const which differ from var in two ways:

  • both let and const create their own "bubble" (scope)
  • const cannot be re-assigned, nor re-declared

By "bubble" I mean that a variable declared with let or const do not overlap with the same variable name declared in an enclosing or in an outer "bubble". For example:

let name = "John";

  let name = "Valentino";
  console.log(name); // "Valentino"

console.log(name); // "John"

Here name seems a duplicate, but in reality it is two different variables in their own bubble. const has the same behaviour:

const name = "John";

  const name = "Valentino";
  console.log(name); // "Valentino"

console.log(name); // "John"

The same code with var instead behaves in a different way:

var name = "John";

  var name = "Valentino";
  console.log(name); // "Valentino"

console.log(name); // "Valentino"

As I said const cannot be reassigned, nor re-declared in the same bubble. If you try to re-declare a const you get "SyntaxError: Identifier has already been declared". And if you reassign some value to the same constant you get "TypeError: Assignment to constant variable". The following example throws an error:

const name = "John";
const name = "Valentino";

// SyntaxError: Identifier 'name' has already been declared

and this code throws as well:

const name = "John";
name = "Valentino";

// TypeError: Assignment to constant variable.

But please, pay attention because when we say "const cannot be reassigned, nor re-declared" that does not mean const is immutable. That's a topic that trips up literally every JavaScript developer I talk to. In fact any slightly more complex JavaScript data structure like array or object is more than mutable even when assigned to a const:

const person = {
  name: "John",
  age: 21

person.name = "Valentino";


// { name: 'Valentino', age: 21 }
// Oh, I wish I was 21 for real!

How is that immutable? Here's an array:

const list = [1, 1, 3, 2, 5];


console.log(list); // [ 1, 3, 2, 5 ]

Again, not immutable. Next time someone says "const is immutable", show him/her a couple of tricks.

Happy coding!

Posted on by:

valentinogagliardi profile

Valentino Gagliardi


Coding instructor | Django lover | The Little JavaScript Book


markdown guide

The thing is const never let you to change the memory address it refers to.

you but can mutate the value itself.


Const makes the reference immutable, and for primitives that means the value is immutable too.

But for Objects, the difference matters.


That's just because of the nature of JavaScript, that's how it is.

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):

Object.defineProperty(person, 'name', { value: 'John', writable: false });

So when you do this, it'll be silently ignored since the person object is now immutable:

person.name = "Valentino";

This is irrespective of whether you defined person as let, const or var!


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.


I think const as an immutable pointer. You can change the value of what it points to but not the place it points to.

Disclaimer, that is just how I think about it, I don't know if it works like that internally.


If you want immutability then you need to start using Object.freeze() and Object.seal()


Object.freeze is shallow though :-)


So that's why there libraries like Immutable.js, but it would be great if JS has something for making values immutable.


It's all a war of semantics. Technically, the variable itself is immutable for its lifetime; it just so happens to act as a gateway to data that is quite mutable. This is why I hate the way Java tries to teach students: "Everything is pass by value." Yeah, everything is pass by value... but the value happens to be a reference to something else. Strange that something passed by "value" lets me trigger side effects for observers of that data.

Good post.


We have to be sure what exactly const are pointing to, the memory address remains the same.