Today I was asked a question on JavaScript regarding the difference between normal `for` loop and a `map` function on an array with regards to closures. Can anyone help me understand? #javascript #interview

I wanna' know this too.

Javascript uses function scoping.

In a normal for loop you have no local scope within the loop and hence no closures.

Regarding the subject: https://ryanpcmcquen.org/javascript...

@Voxera traditionally true, though we do now have block scoping as well with the let/const keywords

@AllenII depending on platform but yes.

But that is not a function of the for loop.

And how does block scope work with closures? I actually do mot know if it is the same as function scope.

@Voxera to be honest with you, i only started using closures heavily only a few months ago, so i got nothing to personally say if there's any difference. But seeing as closures are formed by creating an inner execution context (function) i guess there shouldn't be much if any difference at all.

Or I'm missing the point entirely somehow, I dunno

@AllenII looks like we have to try ;) and find out.

@Voxera i literally just layed down

@w0ble great article

In JS, functions are treated as first class objects. This allows you to return a function or pass it as an argument/parameter into other functions. This means a function could be created in one place and called in another place; closures help us handle possible problems with variable access (scope). Different from context (`this`).

Reading articles is definitely useful, the one linked above seems handy.

@faisal
Yes. And after some sleep I also realized that without the function there is no way to create a closure.

Its not just scope that matters.

Only a function allows you to return actual code which is what triggers closure so without a function no closure and back to the original question: a map uses a function to process each element which can trigger closure while a "for" loop does not by it self use a function and does not trigger a closure.

@Voxera yes exactly! +1