Speaker 1: Welcome to the deep dive. Today. We're going deep on
Speaker 1: something that seems, I don't know, deceptively simple in JavaScript
Speaker 1: variables we use them all the time obviously, but have
Speaker 1: you ever stopped to think about like where they actually
Speaker 1: live in the code and how the JavaScript engine actually
Speaker 1: finds them. You know, That's what scope is all about,
Speaker 1: and believe me, it gets way more interesting than you
Speaker 1: might think it does. Our guide for this deep dive
Speaker 1: is Kyle Simpson's book You Don't Know JS Scope Enclosures.
Speaker 1: He really digs deep into like the guts of how
Speaker 1: JavaScript works, and we're going to unpack some of the
Speaker 1: key insights from his work. Hopefully, you know, make it clear.
Speaker 1: By the end of this you'll have a rock solid
Speaker 1: understanding of scope and it's close relative closures, which will
Speaker 1: make you, I hope, a much more confident JavaScript developer.
Speaker 1: Right off the bat, Kyle reveals something that kind of
Speaker 1: blew my mind. JavaScript is actually a compiled language. I
Speaker 1: always thought it was like interpreted.
Speaker 2: I know, it's a common misconception. A lot of people
Speaker 2: think that, well, JavaScript isn't compiled ahead of time like
Speaker 2: some languages, you know, C plus plus or something. The
Speaker 2: engine actually does compile your code right before execution. Okay,
Speaker 2: it's incredibly fast, like microseconds, But it does involve like
Speaker 2: breaking down the code into tokens, parsing the structure, and
Speaker 2: then actually generating the instructions the computer's going to run.
Speaker 1: Huh. So it's not just reading the code like line
Speaker 1: by line as it goes. No, not at all interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this compilation step is really crucial for how JavaScript
Speaker 2: handles scope. So think of scope as a set of
Speaker 2: rules that determine where variables live and how the code
Speaker 2: can access them.
Speaker 1: Okay, that makes sense. Kyle uses this idea of LHS
Speaker 1: and RHS lookups to explain how this works. Can you
Speaker 1: break that down a little bit? Sure.
Speaker 2: Imagine the JavaScript engines like having a conversation with a
Speaker 2: friend called scope. Okay, So when the engine needs to
Speaker 2: assign a value to a variable, like you know, in
Speaker 2: a statement like two, it basically asks Scope, Hey, I
Speaker 2: need to put this value two tons somewhere. Do you
Speaker 2: have a container labeled A Okay, So that's an LHS lookup.
Speaker 2: It's looking for the target of the assignment.
Speaker 1: So it's like finding the right box to put something
Speaker 1: in exactly.
Speaker 2: Now, if the code needs to actually read the value
Speaker 2: of a variable. Like in console dot log the engine asks, so, hey,
Speaker 2: can you tell me what's inside the container labeled A.
Speaker 2: That's an RHS lookup. It's retrieving the value.
Speaker 1: Got it. So LHS is for assigning, RHS is for retrieving.
Speaker 1: But how does this relate to nested scopes, like you
Speaker 1: know when you have functions within functions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so think of nested scopes kind of like floors
Speaker 2: in a building. Okay, each function creates a new floor.
Speaker 2: If the engine can't find a variable on the current floor,
Speaker 2: it takes the elevator up to the next level, searching
Speaker 2: each enclosing scope until it reaches the top floor, which
Speaker 2: is the global scope.
Speaker 1: Global scope, and if it can't find the variable even
Speaker 1: after going all the way up, then.
Speaker 2: You get an error and you get a reference error
Speaker 2: for RHS lookups, meaning the variable doesn't exist, and they
Speaker 2: type error for LHS lookups if you're trying to assign
Speaker 2: to something that can't be assigned to.
Speaker 1: Got it?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Okay, so scope is all about where the code can
Speaker 1: see the variables. But then what about lexical scope. That
Speaker 1: sounds a bit more I don't know, complex.
Speaker 2: Yeah, lexical scope just simply means that the scope of
Speaker 2: a variable is determined by where it is written in
Speaker 2: the code, not by where it's executed. It's like those
Speaker 2: Russian nesting dolls. Yeah, each scope is contained within another.
Speaker 1: Okay, So if I have a function inside another function,
Speaker 1: the inner function can see the variables from the outer
Speaker 1: function exactly.
Speaker 2: Okay, the interfunction scope is nested within the outer function scope,
Speaker 2: and if there's a variable with the same game in
Speaker 2: both scopes, the inner function will prioritize its own local variable. Effectively,
Speaker 2: it's kind of like shadowing the one from the outer scope.
Speaker 1: So lexical scope is all about the structure of the
Speaker 1: code itself. Are there ways to break these rules?
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are a couple ways to cheat lexical scope,
Speaker 2: but they're generally frowned upon because it makes your code
Speaker 2: harder to understand and potentially like less performant. One is
Speaker 2: using evil, which lets you execute arbitrary code dynamically, potentially
Speaker 2: changing the scope at runtime, so.
Speaker 1: That throws a wrench into the whole like compile time
Speaker 1: scope analysis exactly.
Speaker 2: The other way is to mess with lexical scope is
Speaker 2: using the with statement. It's less common, but it creates
Speaker 2: a new scope from an object, which can lead to
Speaker 2: confusion and potentially unintended consequences.
Speaker 1: So probably best to avoid those.
Speaker 2: If we can, yes stick to the clear rules of
Speaker 2: lexico scope, it's going to keep your code more predictable
Speaker 2: and help the engine optimize it better.
Speaker 1: This is making a lot more sense. But so far
Speaker 1: we've only talked about like functions creating scopes. What about
Speaker 1: other parts of the code, like loops, conditional statements, those
Speaker 1: sorts of things. Do they have their own scopes?
Speaker 2: That's a great question. So for a long time, JavaScript
Speaker 2: only had what's called function scope, meaning functions were the
Speaker 2: main creators of scope.
Speaker 3: But with six we now have block scope as well
Speaker 3: block scope, so now blocks of code can have their
Speaker 3: own little, I don't know, isolated spaces for variables exactly.
Speaker 2: It's all about this idea of keeping variables like as
Speaker 2: contained as possible, following the principle of least privilege.
Speaker 1: That sounds like a good security practice.
Speaker 2: It is. It helps prevent accidental reuse of variables and
Speaker 2: potential conflicts. Leads to cleaner, more maintainable code.
Speaker 1: So how do you create a block scope? Is it
Speaker 1: just curly braces?
Speaker 2: So not all curly braces create a new scope. Traditionally,
Speaker 2: four loops didn't actually have their own block scope, which
Speaker 2: led to some interesting behavior. But with ES six we
Speaker 2: have the let and constant keywords. They allow us to
Speaker 2: declare variables that are specifically scope to the block they're
Speaker 2: defined in.
Speaker 1: Okay, so if I use let inside of a four loop,
Speaker 1: that variable is truly contained within that loop exactly.
Speaker 2: It's a much cleaner way to manage variables and prevent
Speaker 2: them from like accidentally leaking into other parts to the code.
Speaker 2: And const is very similar, except it's for declaring constants
Speaker 2: values that shouldn't be reassigned.
Speaker 1: I gotcha. This is all making a lot more sense now.
Speaker 1: But there's one more thing that's always kind of tripped
Speaker 1: me up when it comes to scope hoisting. It's like
Speaker 1: variables can like magically move around in the code.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Hoisting is another one of those things that kind
Speaker 2: of highlights the importance of that compilation step we talked
Speaker 2: about ear Yeah, so during compilation, the JavaScript engine actually
Speaker 2: processes all the variable and function declarations first before any
Speaker 2: other code is executed, so.
Speaker 1: It's like they're all moved up to the top of
Speaker 1: their scope.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good way to visualize it mm, and
Speaker 2: it can lead to some unexpected behavior if you're not careful.
Speaker 2: For example, you can actually use a variable before it
Speaker 2: appears to be declared in the code because the declaration
Speaker 2: has already been hoisted during compilation.
Speaker 1: So I can use a variable before it's declared.
Speaker 2: You can use it in the sense that the engine
Speaker 2: knows it exists, but it won't have a value yet.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: This is where the difference between like declaration and assignment
Speaker 2: comes in.
Speaker 1: Right, So declaring a variable is just telling the engine
Speaker 1: it exists. Assigning of value is when you actually put
Speaker 1: something in that container. So hoisting only applies to declarations,
Speaker 1: not assignments exactly.
Speaker 2: The assignment still happens where you write it in the code,
Speaker 2: but the declaration is processed beforehand, which can lead to
Speaker 2: like some head scratching moments if you're not aware of it.
Speaker 1: That gotcha. Okay, I think I'm starting to wrap my
Speaker 1: head around hoisting a little bit. Any other I don't
Speaker 1: know quirks I should be aware of.
Speaker 2: One kind of interesting thing is that function declarations are
Speaker 2: hoisted before variable declarations. So if you have a function
Speaker 2: and a variable with the same name, the function declaration
Speaker 2: will actually take precedence. But in general, you know, it's
Speaker 2: good practice to just avoid these kinds of situations and
Speaker 2: write like clear and predictable code.
Speaker 1: It sounds like solid advice.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay, So we've covered scope, lexical scope, breaking the rules,
Speaker 1: block scope, and hoisting. We've gone pretty deep into how
Speaker 1: JavaScript handles variables. But there's one more big concept that
Speaker 1: always seems like shrouded in mystery. Closures.
Speaker 2: Closures.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's often seen as this advanced, almost magical concept
Speaker 1: in JavaScript, but it's actually simpler than it sounds. It's
Speaker 1: something that just happens naturally in your code all the time.
Speaker 2: Really, I've always been like kind of intimidated by closures. Yeah,
Speaker 2: what exactly is a closure? And why should I even
Speaker 2: care about them?
Speaker 1: So a closure is simply a function's ability to remember
Speaker 1: and access its lexical scope even when it's executed outside
Speaker 1: of that original scope. Okay, it's a natural consequence of
Speaker 1: how scope works in JavaScript.
Speaker 2: Can you give me an example of that. I'm still
Speaker 2: a little hazy on what that actually, you know what
Speaker 2: that looks like?
Speaker 1: Sure? Imagine you have a function called outer function, and it,
Speaker 1: you know, declares a variable called message inside of our function,
Speaker 1: you define another function, inner function right now, because of
Speaker 1: lexical scope, inner function can access the message variable from out.
Speaker 2: Function, right, because you know, the inner function can see.
Speaker 1: Those variables exactly. But here's the interesting part. If outer
Speaker 1: function returns inner function like gives it back to the
Speaker 1: outside world.
Speaker 2: Right, and we later execute inner function, it can still
Speaker 2: access that message variable even though outer function is finished running.
Speaker 1: Wait, so interfunction is holding onto that scope even after
Speaker 1: outer function is done exactly.
Speaker 2: That's closure in action. Interfunction is closed over the scope
Speaker 2: of outer function, preserving its access to the variables in
Speaker 2: that scope.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 2: And this is incredibly powerful because it allows functions to
Speaker 2: maintain their own private state even as they're passed around
Speaker 2: and executed in different parts of the code.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm starting to see why closures are a big deal.
Speaker 1: But where do we actually encounter them in real world code? Like,
Speaker 1: is this just a theoretical concept or are closures actually
Speaker 1: doing useful stuff behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: Closures are incredibly common. They're at work whenever you use callbacks, timers,
Speaker 2: event handlers, pretty much anything synchronous in JavaScript.
Speaker 1: Oh okay.
Speaker 2: For example, when you pass a function to set time out,
Speaker 2: that function is going to be executed later, long after
Speaker 2: the code that define its finished running, but thanks to closure,
Speaker 2: it still has access to the variables it needs from
Speaker 2: its original scope.
Speaker 1: So closures are like a time machine for scope. They
Speaker 1: allow functions to like travel through time and you know,
Speaker 1: carry their context with them.
Speaker 2: That's a great way to put it. Wow. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: one of the things that makes JavaScript so flexible and powerful.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm starting to like see the light here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but there's one particular scenario involving closures that always kind
Speaker 1: of baffled me. Closures and loops. Yeah, I've run into
Speaker 1: some like unexpected behavior when combining those two.
Speaker 2: Closures and loops can definitely be tricky. Yeah, it's a
Speaker 2: classic case where our intuition might not match like how
Speaker 2: JavaScript actually works. Let's delve into that next time, explore
Speaker 2: why it can be so confusing, and more importantly, how
Speaker 2: to handle it effectively.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's do it. Welcome back to the deep dive.
Speaker 1: Last time we kind of dove into that fascinating world
Speaker 1: of JavaScript scope enclosures, we even you know, started to
Speaker 1: unravel some of those mysteries surrounding them. Today we're going
Speaker 1: to tackle I think one of the trickiest scenarios involving closures,
Speaker 1: closures within loops. I've run into like some head scratching
Speaker 1: moments with this before. Yeah, and I'm sure you know
Speaker 1: a lot of other JavaScript developers have too.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, absolutely, it can definitely be a bit of
Speaker 2: a minefield. You to be careful with those. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: one of those places where, like the asynchronous nature of
Speaker 2: JavaScript can really throw you for a loop. It's it
Speaker 2: often trips up even experienced developers.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's kind of set the stage here. What's
Speaker 1: the typical scenario where closures and loops like collide?
Speaker 2: So one really common one is when you're trying to
Speaker 2: set up a series of delayed actions using set time
Speaker 2: out within a loop, Okay, where each timeout is supposed
Speaker 2: to like reference the loop counter.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: It seems really straightforward at first, but the results can
Speaker 2: be kind of surprising.
Speaker 1: I think I've been there. You Like, you expect each
Speaker 1: time out to capture the current value of the loop counter,
Speaker 1: but things don't quite work out the way you think
Speaker 1: they're going to. Can you can you give us an
Speaker 1: example like walk us through that?
Speaker 2: Sure? Sure, So let's say we have a loop that
Speaker 2: iterates you know from one to five, okay, and within
Speaker 2: each iteration we set a time out that logs the
Speaker 2: current value of the loop counter after you know, one
Speaker 2: second delay. The code might look, you know, something like this.
Speaker 2: So we've got for barkyei one I expense five I
Speaker 2: plus plus set time out function I one thousand.
Speaker 1: Okay, similar enough. I have a feeling it's not going
Speaker 1: to do what we expect though.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're right to be suspicious.
Speaker 1: Yea.
Speaker 2: If you actually run this code, you'll see it logs
Speaker 2: the number six five times, all after the loop's completed.
Speaker 1: Wait a minute, six, But the loop only goes to five, right,
Speaker 1: and why is it logging it like five times? What's
Speaker 1: going on there?
Speaker 2: It all kind of boils down to that combination of
Speaker 2: scope closures and the asynchronous nature of set timeout. When
Speaker 2: we create those timeout functions within the loop, they each
Speaker 2: form a closure capturing a reference to the variable eye
Speaker 2: from the surrounding scope.
Speaker 1: Okay, so they have a like connection back to that
Speaker 1: to that variable.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. However, those timeout functions don't execute right.
Speaker 1: Away right they're delayed.
Speaker 2: They're scheduled to run after a delay, and by the
Speaker 2: time they actually get around to executing the loop is
Speaker 2: already finished, and the value of eye has reached six.
Speaker 1: So they're all looking at the same eye, which has
Speaker 1: been incremented beyond the loop, like the range of the
Speaker 1: loop exactly. But why does it log six five times?
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't it just log it once at the very
Speaker 1: end when the loop's done.
Speaker 2: So we see six five times because we created five
Speaker 2: timeout functions, each one with its own closure over the
Speaker 2: same eye variable.
Speaker 1: Got it.
Speaker 2: They all essentially have this shared memory of that variable,
Speaker 2: and they all see its final value when they finally
Speaker 2: do run.
Speaker 1: Okay, it's like they have a delayed reaction, but by
Speaker 1: the time they react, the world has changed and the
Speaker 1: value of I is no longer what they thought it
Speaker 1: was going to be.
Speaker 2: That's a great analogy. So the question is, how do
Speaker 2: we fix this? How do we make each timeout capture
Speaker 2: the right value of I at the time it was defined.
Speaker 1: H that's a good question. I mean we need, I
Speaker 1: guess a way to like isolate each timeout scrip so
Speaker 1: that it has its own kind of private copy of
Speaker 1: the loop counter. And I remember you mentioned last time
Speaker 1: aie s those like immediately invoked function expressions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're on the right track iifes are a classic
Speaker 2: solution to this problem.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: By wrapping that code inside the loop in an IEF,
Speaker 2: we can create a new scope for each iteration. So
Speaker 2: it looks something like this we've got for our I
Speaker 2: one I will five I plus plus set timeout functionconsole
Speaker 2: dot log I.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we're creating like a self executing function with
Speaker 1: in each iteration of the loop and passing in the
Speaker 1: current value of I into it. And I see we're
Speaker 1: also using like a different variable name J inside the IQ.
Speaker 1: What's that for?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that J variable inside the IQ. It creates
Speaker 2: a new, like distinct variable within the ip zone scope. Okay,
Speaker 2: And that ensures that each timeout function has its own
Speaker 2: like private copy of the loop counter, got it, effectively
Speaker 2: isolating it from the outer loop's eye.
Speaker 1: Right. Okay, so we're kind of creating like these little
Speaker 1: isolated scope bubbles exactly.
Speaker 2: That prevents those those timing conflicts. And you might remember
Speaker 2: from last time E six and introduced an even more
Speaker 2: elegant solution for this using the let keyword. Oh, let
Speaker 2: creates block scoped variables, right, So when you use let
Speaker 2: in the loop heeader, it effectively creates a new binding
Speaker 2: for that loop counter on.
Speaker 1: Each iteration, so we can actually just like simplify that
Speaker 1: code even further. We don't even need that if exactly.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 2: So the E S six version using let would look
Speaker 2: like this for let I one, I five, I plus plus. Yeah,
Speaker 2: set time out, function building much clean.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Wow, the let keyword just takes care of all
Speaker 1: that for us. Yeah, this block soaping stuff is pretty powerful.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 1: So we've seen how closures within loops can kind of
Speaker 1: lead to this unexpected behavior, but we've also learned and
Speaker 1: how to kind of tame them using II fees or
Speaker 1: you know, that let keyword. Now, I can't help but
Speaker 1: wonder if these same kind of scenarios like pop up
Speaker 1: in other areas of JavaScript, especially when we're dealing with like,
Speaker 1: you know, asynchronous operations like ajax requests, those sorts of things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a great observation. Closures in asynchronous operations like
Speaker 2: go hand in hand, right, and those timing intricacies that
Speaker 2: we've been talking about, they can lead to similar similar challenges. Right,
Speaker 2: So let's let's explore that a little bit further and
Speaker 2: see how these same principles and solutions that we've talked
Speaker 2: about applying those scenarios.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the deep dive. We've we've really explored
Speaker 1: this like intricate dance between scope enclosures in JavaScript and
Speaker 1: even tackled that tricky terrain of closures within loops. Now
Speaker 1: it's time to bring it all together. See how these
Speaker 1: closures actually underpin one of the most powerful patterns in JavaScript,
Speaker 1: the module pattern.
Speaker 2: Module pattern, Right, it's all about creating like organized, reusable
Speaker 2: units of code that have their own kind of internal
Speaker 2: workings and a clear interface for interacting with the outside world.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, it's like building those self contained components, right
Speaker 1: that we can just plug and play into different parts
Speaker 1: of our application. But how do closures actually enable us
Speaker 1: to create these modules?
Speaker 2: So, closures are really the key to creating private data
Speaker 2: and functionality within a module. Okay, Remember how they allow
Speaker 2: functions to hold onto their lexical scope even when they're
Speaker 2: executed outside of that scope. Right, we can leverage that
Speaker 2: to create like a private compartment within our modules.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm starting to see the connection here. Can you
Speaker 1: give us like a concrete example walk us through that.
Speaker 2: Sure, let's imagine we're building a simple countermodule. Okay, keep
Speaker 2: the actual counter value hidden you know, from the outside world,
Speaker 2: allow external code to only interact with it through specific
Speaker 2: methods like increment, decrement and get value.
Speaker 1: Right right, So we're like creating a controlled environment where
Speaker 1: the counter is kind of protected from you know, accidental
Speaker 1: manipulation or something exactly.
Speaker 2: So here's how we can achieve that using the module pattern.
Speaker 2: So we've got vur countermodule function for account increment dot
Speaker 2: function for account in function return count, but directly value
Speaker 2: dot function get value dot function.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we're defining a function called counter module and
Speaker 1: then immediately invoking it. What's the purpose of that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that's uh, that's the essence of an immediately
Speaker 2: invoked function expression or ioev. By wrapping our module code
Speaker 2: in an IF, we create this new scope that's isolated
Speaker 2: from the global scope, got it.
Speaker 1: So we're creating that like private compartment you were talking
Speaker 1: about exactly.
Speaker 2: Now, Notice how we have a variable count inside of
Speaker 2: the IF. That variable is only accessible within the scope
Speaker 2: of that IA, making it private to our module.
Speaker 1: And I see we're returning an object from the IF.
Speaker 1: Is that our public api exactly?
Speaker 2: That returned object contains the methods that we actually want
Speaker 2: to expose to the outside world increment, decrement, and get value.
Speaker 1: So external code can call those methods, but it can't
Speaker 1: directly mess with the count variable itself exactly.
Speaker 2: And here's where closures come in. Okay, those methods, because
Speaker 2: they were defined within the IF, they form closures over
Speaker 2: the if scope, so.
Speaker 1: They have a memory of that internal scope even after
Speaker 1: the IFE has finished executing.
Speaker 2: Precisely, that's how they can still interact with the private
Speaker 2: count variable even though it's not directly accessible from the outside.
Speaker 1: This is so clever. So by leverage enclosures, we've created
Speaker 1: this like secure encapsulated module with its own internal state
Speaker 1: and controlled access.
Speaker 2: It's incredibly powerful. It's the foundation of many popular JavaScript
Speaker 2: libraries and frameworks.
Speaker 1: Now, I remember you mentioned that ES six introduced native
Speaker 1: support for modules. Does that make it this kind of
Speaker 1: traditional module pattern obsolete.
Speaker 2: ES six modules definitely provide a more modern and streamlined
Speaker 2: way to work with modules, but that traditional pattern is
Speaker 2: still relevant. I think it's valuable to understand the underlying principles,
Speaker 2: and it can still be useful in certain situations, especially
Speaker 2: if you're working with older codebases.
Speaker 1: Right, It's like understanding the roots of a tree even
Speaker 1: as it's growing new branches exactly. So what are like,
Speaker 1: what are the main differences between ES six modules and
Speaker 1: this kind of more traditional pattern.
Speaker 2: So ES six modules use explicit important export statements to
Speaker 2: actually define the module's interface and how it interacts with
Speaker 2: other modules. Got it. So it's a more declarative approach.
Speaker 2: It's like build into the language itself.
Speaker 1: Right, So instead of relying on IF's andclosures to create
Speaker 1: that encapsulation, now we have like dedicated syntax.
Speaker 2: For it exactly. And it comes with some advantages. You know.
Speaker 2: E six modules are statically analyzable, okay, meaning the module
Speaker 2: structure is determined at compile time, which can lead to
Speaker 2: performance benefits. They're also more aligned with modern javascripts development practices.
Speaker 2: It just makes the code easier to read, reason about,
Speaker 2: and maintain.
Speaker 1: Cool. So it's definitely the way to go for new projects.
Speaker 1: But it's also great to have that understanding of the
Speaker 1: traditional module pattern in our back pocket.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, I think it helps you appreciate the evolution
Speaker 2: of JavaScript and the clever techniques people have used to
Speaker 2: overcome challenges and build you know, more robust applications.
Speaker 1: Well, we've covered a lot of ground in this deep
Speaker 1: dive into JavaScript scope and closures, from understanding like the
Speaker 1: basic rules of variable access to seeing how closures can
Speaker 1: actually empower us to create this modular, maintainable code. It's
Speaker 1: it's been a really enlightening journey, I think.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm glad you found it valuable. Remember these concepts,
Speaker 2: they might seem a little bit abstract at first, but
Speaker 2: they're like fundamental to mastering JavaScript and writing you know,
Speaker 2: truly elegant and powerful code. Keep exploring, keep experimenting, and
Speaker 2: keep pushing the boundaries of your JavaScript knowledge.
Speaker 1: Awesome. Well, thanks for joining us on the deep dive,
Speaker 1: and until next time, happy coding.