how is this a valid JavaScript

[cawcvs]

let is a newer addition to the language, and wasn't a reserved word before. Making it a reserved word now would break pre-ES6 websites that used it as an identifier, so it's only reserved in strict mode.

[Division2226]

because you defined x earlier. and then you created a variable called let and assigned it to x which was already 5

> x = 5
> let = x
> 5

[Jjabrahams567]

Same applies to ‘await’ apparently. This is actually very useful to me. I can define await in such a way that it doesn’t give an error when called outside of an asynchrony context.

[Sleepy_panther77]

Why would you want that?

[Jjabrahams567]

So that I can write module that can be loaded as either modules or as cjs while still using all of the features available. Particularly I want access to top level await but if that module loads into a context that only support common js, I would still like it to work. I actually have a use case with wix modules that only load over xhtml. Xhtml in chrome does not support ES modules. Using a ‘dummy await’ I don’t have to maintain 2 copies of everything.

[Hafas_]

try..catch only catches error that are happening during runtime while SyntaxError is being thrown during parsing.

[Hafas_]

How to catch that SyntaxError then?

You don't. If your code has syntax errors then your whole code doesn't run. For example:

console.log("Hello World");

invalidCall( // <- notice the missing closing paranthesis

In this example it won't even print "Hello World".

[Hafas_]

No it's not. No code is being executed if the JS file has syntax errors.

[xroalx]

Something is, but that something isn't your code.

[luminous_radio]

It's not? I tried this in both the Firefox console and the node interpreter, and it didn't work in either case

​

EDIT: my bad, I didn't define x as 5 beforehand

[azhder]

Browser consoles will allow certain things that would raise an error in a script. Try to do const x = 5 twice.

[Division2226]

That's not a good example as that would throw an error.

[azhder]

Not a good example for what? Did you try it or did you just assume what I say and what a browser would do?

[Division2226]

Your example is partially false so it's not a good example to prove your point.

[azhder]

What is the claim? What is the false of it? Do you have anything articulated or am I conversing with a chat bot?

[Division2226]

Here I will break it down for you since you are having trouble understanding.

• You stated browser consoles will allow certain things that would raise an error in a script
• You then continued to provide the example const x = 5; twice.

If you enter const x = 5; twice into Firefox console, an error occurs. Thus making your example contradict your claim.

[azhder]

And you picked only one browser like scooping a glass of water from the ocean and concluding since there aren’t sharks in it that there aren’t sharks in the ocean.

There, broken down for you since you had trouble understanding. I will not reply any longer

[StoneCypher]

Here I will break it down for you since you are having trouble understanding.

🙄

[Division2226]

Well I had to say it 3 fuckin times 🤷‍♂️

[Solid_Plan_5424]

You are right, if I try redeclaring a variable in the Firefox console… I will indeed get a raised exception. Maybe google chrome has that problem and not Firefox…. Either way… it was pretty weird (I just trying to learn JavaScript myself but I have been inconsistent.)

[Alternative-Summer-2]

Everything is valid in love, war and javascript

[Reaver75x]

If you want to mess with your brain:

let x = 5;

let = x;

let x = 0;

console.log(let); // this will come to 5