cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/39334581
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2025
651 points (98.7% liked)
Programmer Humor
27673 readers
511 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's object-oriented; you can assign this to a named variable.
In that case the full thing would be
const fun = () => {}Yeah for whatever reason, FE devs want to make everything a const. It's like a religious belief or something, it's really kinda weird.
const fun = () => { const something = "whatever" const array = []; array.push(someting)
for (const thing of array) { if (thing === 'whatever') blah(thing) } }
Semicolons? Optional. Which quotes you should use? Whatever you feel like! But you must declare things as a const wherever possible! Even if it's an array that you're going to be changing, declare it as a const because you should know that you can push things into a const array, and since it's possible to declare it as a const, you must declare it as a const.
Why is this? Nobody knows, but it's important to FE devs that you use const.
The reason is very simple, performance. If a value doesn't need to be changed, don't declare it as mutable. This isn't just a front-end thing btw.
Pushing something onto an array isn't changing the array? It's not changing the reference to the array, but from a style standpoint it doesn't make sense.
And if you're declaring a const within the scope of a function, it's still allocating memory when it enters the scope and disposing it when it leaves the scope, same as a variable. There's no performance benefit to do this.
Something like const CONSTANT_VALUE = "This never changes" has a performance benefit and is actually how other languages use constants. The value will always be the same, the compiler understands this and can optimize accordingly. If you're declaring an iterator or the result of calling a webservice to be const it'll be a different value every time it runs that code, so it's not something a compiler can optimize. In style terms, it's a value that's different every time you get to that line of code, so why would you want to call it constant?
You're comment indicates the FE dev obsession with always using const stems from a misunderstanding of how computers work. But of course many religious beliefs originate from a misunderstanding of the world. Whatever man, I just make it a const to make the linter happy, because it's dumb FE bullshit LOL.
Lol.
So you're arguing for writing things as they seem, not the way that computers treat them?
Maybe rethink this.
A constant inside a function is not constant to the computer. It's only constant within the scope of the function. So it's not constant to the computer since every time the function is called the "constant" will have a different value.
Do you even know what a real constant is?
You maybe need to rethink some things.
That variable is only created when the function is run, and it holds a constant value for the entirety of its lifetime.
It is literally constant from the perspective of the computer executing it. You're the one adding an extra layer of expectation here.
semicolons? quotes? use a formatter and don't think about it. I think js world has basically done this already.
const is simpler. why would I declare an array as
letif I'm not reassigning? someone can look at it and know they don't have to think about reassignment of the reference, just normal mutation. ts has the furtherreadonlyto describe the other type of mutation, don't abuseletto mean that.const arrow over named function? gets rid of all the legacy behaviors and apis. no
arguments, consistentthis, and no hoisting or accidental reassignment. the 2 places you should ever use named fn are generator or if you actually needthisIt's nice when a codebase has sane formatter conventions. I can't say that my workplace does, tho…
How is having
argumentsandthisan issue? If one doesn't need them, then it can be just left unused. I really don't get this argument. It makes everything visually a variable. I see no benefit to this convention and actively despise it.I've worked at several places that didn't have formatters when I started. they did by the time I left. you can incrementally adopt them and if it's automated most people at worst don't care. advocate for things you want
reassignment and hoisting are the significant ones. behavior around
thisdoes just seem more intuitive than otherwise when it comes up, so I think telling especially new devs to use const arrow fn everywhere but classes is a reasonable rulehate to break it to you but it behaves like a variable either way.
functionjust behaves closer to avarvariable.constfns are less like variables since no assignment. intellisense/devtools all show them just fine. it really is just a minor aesthetic difference on the definitionWe use formatters, I just disagree with our current conventions (nitpicky, I know).
To me it's about readability and declaring everything as
constgoes against that.What benefits does it have? Using
thisin arrow functions is still valid it's just that they will use parent scope to resolve it. You saying it doesn't havethisorargumentsdoesn't convey any benefits (nor real drawbacks) to me. Hence the convention feels useless at best.Stylistically, you're changing the array when you add something to it. Javascript is a janky language in the best of times, but FE devs like to artificially introduce additional unnecessary complexities on top of the jank.
Why would you declare a const that's going to have different data every time to function is called?
Now I'm thinking it's a form of gatekeeping. Just an excuse for FE devs to throw out terms like "immutable" to make it sound like they know what they're taking about. Y'all need to constantly sound like you know what you're talking about when dealing with users, pretending weird stylistic choices have real technical reasons for them. But the BE devs know what you're saying is complete bullshit LOL.
knowing the programming language you're working in at a basic level is gatekeeping I'm ok with
You are literally just describing the conceptual differences between functional programming and object oriented programming. It has nothing to do with front end vs backend, except for the fact that React has vastly popularized functional paradigms on the frontend.
If you come from a Java / Spring background, that will seem foreign, if you come from an express background it will feel natural.
Functional programming is extremely pleasant though. Its been described as what object oriented would look like if you actually followed all the SOLID principles. You should keep an open mind.
I'm questioning why things are being done in the way they're being done and you're saying I'm being close minded? Also spewing out some more jargon like that's going to impress me?
And LOL at "it will feel natural after you get used to it." I don't think you understand the concept about something feeling natural. Like I say I just make stuff const because someone put some bullshit in the linter. Enforcing dumb rules in a linter is the opposite of keeping an open mind, it forcing preferences on people.
I think I've confirmed it's just FE religious dogma. Just keep on repeating whatever Theo says and people will think you know what you're talking about.
Lol good luck on that promotion, you seem difficult to be around.
I wonder how your company handles performance reviews when you already know everything about all types of programming?
Yup, it's definitely just some religious dogma going on there.
You think it's a good career choice to conform and never question anything so you wind up being indistinguishable from an LLM? Ok, good luck!