Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant in the context of writing code - you’ll never hear anyone refer to their “bindings”. It breaks down with the simple `let a = 22; let b = a` example where the tentacle/binding metaphor can lead to wrong intuition of why a change to the value of a is not reflected in b .
In what way does it break down? Maybe if one is thinking of boxes, going by "a change to the value of a "? The book says: > When a binding points at a value, that does not mean it is tied to that value forever. The = operator can be used at any time on existing bindings to disconnect them from their current value and have them point to a new one In this case: let a = 22; The binding a points to the value 22. let b =…
This is exactly what I’m talking about:
> The binding b points to the same value that a points to
It may look obvious to you, but someone will interpret “the same value” as literally the same. So they might expect a change in a to reflect on b. Whereas if you tell them the “a box contains 22” and “the b box also contains 22” you prevent that misunderstanding. They might not have any concept of references/pointers yet and are just trying to make sense out of everything. These are the kind of silly mistakes people make when learning programming, or a new language.
It’s not about being right or wrong but providing a safe path to understanding that can be built upon. I did not mean the binding/tentacle abstraction is wrong, just that there might be a simpler one to introduce the concept. The book is still great regardless.