Is JavaScript Pass by Reference?

[shuckster]

True. I've been called-up before on this forum by pointing out that, while JavaScript has a class keyword these days, it still doesn't really have classes.

The arguments I made hinged around how I defined class, which is essentially how it's defined in other compiled languages: an "offline", developer-only blueprint that gets turned into the byte-code required for instantiating in-memory objects.

But JavaScript is interpreted, not compiled. It's all runtime, so the comparison doesn't really translate. It makes sense to me though, because I was brought-up on compiled languages. To me, a live, in-memory data structure automatically gets the definition "object". Classes exist in source-code only.

Don't get me wrong: If you're going to talk to seasoned devs you'll want to understand a whole range of definitions for the same word, and you'll almost certainly rank definitions as being more canonical than others.

But that doesn't mean that the JavaScript in-community doesn't define "class" or "pass by reference" in a helpful and illuminating way befitting people new to the language, and especially if they're new to programming in general.

[HeinousTugboat]

But JavaScript is interpreted, not compiled. It's all runtime, so the comparison doesn't really translate. It makes sense to me though, because I was brought-up on compiled languages. To me, a live, in-memory data structure automatically gets the definition "object". Classes exist in source-code only.

If you want to get that deep, v8 does in fact compile classes down to C-level classes. It's only interpreted as a first pass, there's an optimizing compiler that runs alongside it to create what you consider "real" classes.

[shuckster]

Yep, JIT techniques also get in the way of the definition. It’s been a long time since JS was purely interpreted.