Because sometimes that let can be replaced by other things like const. Which can be managed statically by the machine and not by my (imperfect) ability to know if it's mutated or not

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Ok but, in the second example you typically just put final or const in front of the type to denote immutability. I still don't see the advantage to the first declaration.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

oh for sure, but I think that's the rarer case for language implementions. Having a consistent structure with alternative keywords in static positions is just easier to develop an AST for. Personally my favorite language doesn't even allow for const values (except by convention) so it's really just a matter of preference

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is it rarer? I think a lot of modern languages go for the first option but pretty much all C style languages use the latter. It's probably a wash for which is more popular I'd think.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I'm talking about quantity not the popularity of a given language. There are certainly a number of popular languages that follow that convention

load more comments (2 replies)