[lkjlakjsdlfkj]

"let" is more elegant IMO.

[ajkjk]

I always found 'let' to be such a strange name. What on earth is appealing about it?

The usual variable declaration syntax is <type> <name>; it's not a stretch to imagine the type as 'var', a catchall type. But 'let'? Let is a verb; it should be in a place where functions, not types, go. It makes sense in "let x in {}" type expressions, and it kinda makes sense in Lisp, but I don't see any argument for it in a C-like language.

[cryptonector]

It's math-y. As in "let n be a natural, ...".

[kazinator]

> I don't see any argument for it in a C-like language.

The inventor of the C-like languages B and NB (which then inspired C) agreed and used the more intuitive auto.

  {
    auto x = 1; /* x is implicitly an integer */
  }

Now it's back in vogue in the C-like language C++. It doesn't mean "automatic storage", though.

[MichaelGG]

>It makes sense in "let x in {}" type expressions

Without jumps, all code can be rewritten to be a series of "let x = ... in <expression>"

The fact Java has statements instead of everything being expressions is a design flaw and should be rectified not glorified.

[ajkjk]

Er. Why do you think that?

[MichaelGG]

It's essentially what SSA is.

[coldsauce]

do you mean the word itself? or some implementation detail is more elegant?

[saagarjha]

let as a drop-in replacement for var, or something semantically different?

[earenndil]

Generally in languages that have a let, it means const var.

[saagarjha]

In JavaScript it defines a local variable or something like that, so there’s that…

[Zardoz84]

on BASIC, not