This site was built to compliment the existing NetSuite Professionals Slack Community by adding a means for members to easily find answers to common questions and to create a searchable database of those questions and answers.

NetSuite Professionals

Shouldn't be writing any new 1.0 code anyways honestly. Should take the time to re-write in 2.0 if applicable. Otherwise you're starting off with bad technical debt or using an outdated api.

you can use const, but it wont behave to javascript specifications

reassignment attempts do not throw errors

In other words it does the exact same thing as a var in your case, so just use var

and const cant be reassigned, though it wont throw errors if you try

How bad does code have to be that you're re-assigning a const though either way?

usually you use const when you dont want others changing your values

if those people try anyway, they see weirdness with the const not changing, which is harder to debug if they dont know its a const and how const is not the javascript const

You can still change the values of the const you just can't re-assign it. You'd have to Object.freeze it to make it totally locked down

```const x = 5;
x = 6
log.debug('x', x)```

const myTestObject = {x: 5};
console.log(myTestObject.x);
myTestObject.x++;
console.log(myTestObject.x);

and of course, typescript would error before you even deploy the code. So `write 2.1 code and TypeScript`

thats the same behavior you get in javascript

mostly because it isnt reassignment of myTestObject

there is a reason im being very specific in my use of the word reassignment instead of change

"usually you use const when you dont want others changing your values"

Thats just not true. Its the idea but its not how its implemented

battk's code should throw a runtime error in SS2.1

correct, but you using const wouldnt help anyways

creece's code is just demonstrating how js does const.

i use const all the time and just let it be the "normal" const and not try to overwrite it.

creece, did you suggest using SS2.0 on purpose, i.e. avoiding SS 2.1? I can't remember the last time I created a 2.0 script?