On Apr 17, 2015, at 5:09 AM, Alex Kocharin wrote: > > There won't be any performance gain. "const" is used to be much slower in v8 > actually. But they fixed it as far as I know. > > I think it's a code style matter. And speaking about that, realistically, > most code base will never use "const" widely. Just one reason: 5 characters > vs 3 characters to type. So in the name of keeping an amount of different > code styles smaller, I'd say stick with "let" (except for obvious constant > literals like `const PI = 3.14` on top). Just something to consider.
I agree, 'let' is likely to win because of it's length. I find that I fall into using it solely or that reason. I think it also wins on readability. If we had a "do-over". I'd make `let` means what `const` now means and have something different for defining mutable lexical bindings. Maybe `let var foo=...;`. But the let/const pairing was a firmly established direction long before work on ES6 even started. There was so much other stuff to work on and so much inertia behind let/const that nobody ever seriously challenged that direction. Allen
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
