`const` was a mistake

Ah, the good old let-leaning vs constervative

ES2026 will come with `const const` to indicate that it is truly immutable and we will also get a quadruple equal sign ==== to indicate that the thing is truly truly equal.

to me the meaning of JS's const is that it's always the same object, not that it's immutable. clear and simple. and quite important for dealing with mutability too: if you mutate it in one place, all other places are guaranteed to observe the change.

Can't we just agree to default to const and use let when we want to re-assign a variable. It's so useful and nice and helps readers and helps even you the developer.

"Defaulting to `const` actually makes 'let` mean something" (paraphrasing of course)

When I encounter "let" in the code, it stored in some part of my brain. Expecting to find it again later in the code where the value changes. By using "const" for constant value instead of "let". The number of brain energy spent to hold those information are reduced greatly.

2:22 Theo just casually calling an audience member a chatter lol

const is not to protect us from mutation, it is to protect us from javaScript

I have literally never seen an argument about whether to use const vs let. If anybody has a meeting to waste your time about that, their real purpose was to fill time, and they'd have still created a nonsense meeting about something else pointless.

Most variables are immutable. I like the way this is expressed in Rust, `let`, `let mut`, and `const`/`static`. By default you write `let`, and upgrade to mutable if needed. In TS, I write `const` by default in 90% of cases, because a variable usually holds a result of something.