This is a big problem, especially for people new to a field who can't easily tell AI-gen books from human-authored ones.
It also saturates the recommendation system, massively lowering the quality of recommendations that you get for a quality book. This used to be great, because it helped discover other high quality titles. Now, I'm conditioned to automatically skip the list of recs on the basis of it being mostly useless.
"binding" is a PLT term, denoting the association between a name and a value.
It's a higher level concept than the variable - a mutable binding is what people usually refer to as a variable, and an immutable binding is the correct term for what people refer to an "immutable variable" (an oxymoron, if you think about it).
Immutable variable isn't a oxymoron. It can still vary between instantiations. If you have (a)=>{const b = a}, b can have different values even though it can't be reassigned.
In the case of the code that you have cited, these are all different elaborations of the binding at the invocation of the lambda, due to the interplay between activation records and scope rules.
It's not really an "immutable variable" - it's a local binding getting bound to different values on each scope entry.
EDIT: By the way, the `b` binding in your code can be modified. Did you mean `const b = a;` ?
> it's a local binding getting bound to different values
on each scope entry.
It is, I just wanted to point out that the term "immutable variable" is sensible. I think a good way to put it is that b is a variable, and when the statement runs a value is bound to b. So the value bound to b varies yet b can be immutable, in contrast to a constant which is a binding to always the same value.
Fancy seeing this here, some days after finishing the third version :)
I'm also glad to see the asynchronous programming chapter significantly reworked - it was materially weaker than the rest of the book because of some weird analogies involving crows and their nests that didn't seem to make any sort of sense to me.
The third edition also gave me the impression that it was a reasonable book to learn JS and the DOM (and a sprinkle of Node.js, for good measure), but that it was a book aimed primarily at experienced people who were transitioning to JS and the web - not beginners (despite the book's efforts at claiming suitability for beginner programmers).
Sure, you may not have taken away money from Nintendo’s bank account by coercion/force/whatever, but the company and its employees have partaken into an effort to produce something of obvious value to you, for which they are asking for compensation for you to be able to enjoy, and you’re choosing to skirt this understanding so that you can enjoy their work without compensating them for it.
Yeah, you didn’t steal money - you stole their work.
Understand that you’re not entitled to other people’s work, regardless of what they’re asking for it. If you don’t enjoy their stipulations for it, like the hardware they limit their software to run, you’re free to not transact, not steal the work.
Again, it's not stealing if you look at the definition of word stealing. There's a reason it's called piracy not stealing. You are not stealing what those people/company have (the product is still their, the result of their work is still their), you can't steal what they don't have(potential money). It's not stealing per definition.
You still may consider this legal/not legal/moral/immoral and it's ok, each can have their own opinion on this topic and there are different laws in different countries but using word 'stealing' is not correct
Programming with types by Vlad Riscutia fits your bill exactly.
Examples in typescript (so syntax should be familiar compared to e.g OCaml) and teaches you how to model a domain in types and how to think in terms of a type system, instead of diving into the details of how to implement one.
You don't need an accountant for that - you can read the financial statement (this one is pretty simple).
From about $593mil revenue in their income statement (page 4), $510mil is derived from _Royalties_.
Later, on page 13, they explain what _Royalties_ consists of, and I quote:
> Royalties - Mozilla provides the Firefox web browser, which is a free and open-source web browser initially developed by Mozilla Foundation and the Corporation. Mozilla incorporates search engines of its customers as a default status or an optional status available in the Firefox web browser. Mozilla generally receives royalties at a certain percentage of revenues earned by its customers through their search engines incorporated in the Firefox web browser.
Now, I leave it to your judgement if you think that a company that derives 86% of its revenue from the above is dependent on Google ;-)
It also saturates the recommendation system, massively lowering the quality of recommendations that you get for a quality book. This used to be great, because it helped discover other high quality titles. Now, I'm conditioned to automatically skip the list of recs on the basis of it being mostly useless.