We Keep Coding

How does one modify a global variable that is used as an argument [duplicate]

How do I pass variables by reference in JavaScript?
I have three variables that I want to perform several operations to, so I want to put them in a for loop and perform the operations to each one.
Pseudocode:
myArray = new Array(var1, var2, var3);
for (var x = 0; x < myArray.length; x++){
// Do stuff to the array
makePretty(myArray[x]);
}
// Now do stuff to the updated variables
What is the best way to do this?

There is no "pass by reference" available in JavaScript. You can pass an object (which is to say, you can pass-by-value a reference to an object) and then have a function modify the object contents:
function alterObject(obj) {
obj.foo = "goodbye";
}
var myObj = { foo: "hello world" };
alterObject(myObj);
alert(myObj.foo); // "goodbye" instead of "hello world"
You can iterate over the properties of an array with a numeric index and modify each cell of the array, if you want.
var arr = [1, 2, 3];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
arr[i] = arr[i] + 1;
}
It's important to note that "pass-by-reference" is a very specific term. It does not mean simply that it's possible to pass a reference to a modifiable object. Instead, it means that it's possible to pass a simple variable in such a way as to allow a function to modify that value in the calling context. So:
function swap(a, b) {
var tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp; //assign tmp to b
}
var x = 1, y = 2;
swap(x, y);
alert("x is " + x + ", y is " + y); // "x is 1, y is 2"
In a language like C++, it's possible to do that because that language does (sort-of) have pass-by-reference.
edit — this recently (March 2015) blew up on Reddit again over a blog post similar to mine mentioned below, though in this case about Java. It occurred to me while reading the back-and-forth in the Reddit comments that a big part of the confusion stems from the unfortunate collision involving the word "reference". The terminology "pass by reference" and "pass by value" predates the concept of having "objects" to work with in programming languages. It's really not about objects at all; it's about function parameters, and specifically how function parameters are "connected" (or not) to the calling environment. In particular, note that in a true pass-by-reference language — one that does involve objects — one would still have the ability to modify object contents, and it would look pretty much exactly like it does in JavaScript. However, one would also be able to modify the object reference in the calling environment, and that's the key thing that you can't do in JavaScript. A pass-by-reference language would pass not the reference itself, but a reference to the reference.
edit — here is a blog post on the topic. (Note the comment to that post that explains that C++ doesn't really have pass-by-reference. That is true. What C++ does have, however, is the ability to create references to plain variables, either explicitly at the point of function invocation to create a pointer, or implicitly when calling functions whose argument type signature calls for that to be done. Those are the key things JavaScript doesn't support.)

Primitive type variables like strings and numbers are always passed by value.
Arrays and Objects are passed by reference or by value based on these conditions:
if you are setting the value of an object or array it is Pass by Value.
object1 = { prop: "car" };
array1 = [1,2,3];
if you are changing a property value of an object or array then it is Pass by Reference.
object1.prop = "car";
array1[0] = 9;
Code
function passVar(obj1, obj2, num) {
obj1.prop = "laptop"; // will CHANGE original
obj2 = { prop: "computer" }; //will NOT affect original
num = num + 1; // will NOT affect original
}
var object1 = {
prop: "car"
};
var object2 = {
prop: "bike"
};
var number1 = 10;
passVar(object1, object2, number1);
console.log(object1); // output: Object { prop: "laptop" }
console.log(object2); // output: Object { prop: "bike" }
console.log(number1); // ouput: 10

Workaround to pass variable like by reference:
var a = 1;
inc = function(variableName) {
window[variableName] += 1;
};
inc('a');
alert(a); // 2
And yup, actually you can do it without access a global variable:
inc = (function () {
var variableName = 0;
var init = function () {
variableName += 1;
alert(variableName);
}
return init;
})();
inc();

Simple Object
function foo(x) {
// Function with other context
// Modify `x` property, increasing the value
x.value++;
}
// Initialize `ref` as object
var ref = {
// The `value` is inside `ref` variable object
// The initial value is `1`
value: 1
};
// Call function with object value
foo(ref);
// Call function with object value again
foo(ref);
console.log(ref.value); // Prints "3"
Custom Object
Object rvar
/**
* Aux function to create by-references variables
*/
function rvar(name, value, context) {
// If `this` is a `rvar` instance
if (this instanceof rvar) {
// Inside `rvar` context...
// Internal object value
this.value = value;
// Object `name` property
Object.defineProperty(this, 'name', { value: name });
// Object `hasValue` property
Object.defineProperty(this, 'hasValue', {
get: function () {
// If the internal object value is not `undefined`
return this.value !== undefined;
}
});
// Copy value constructor for type-check
if ((value !== undefined) && (value !== null)) {
this.constructor = value.constructor;
}
// To String method
this.toString = function () {
// Convert the internal value to string
return this.value + '';
};
} else {
// Outside `rvar` context...
// Initialice `rvar` object
if (!rvar.refs) {
rvar.refs = {};
}
// Initialize context if it is not defined
if (!context) {
context = this;
}
// Store variable
rvar.refs[name] = new rvar(name, value, context);
// Define variable at context
Object.defineProperty(context, name, {
// Getter
get: function () { return rvar.refs[name]; },
// Setter
set: function (v) { rvar.refs[name].value = v; },
// Can be overrided?
configurable: true
});
// Return object reference
return context[name];
}
}
// Variable Declaration
// Declare `test_ref` variable
rvar('test_ref_1');
// Assign value `5`
test_ref_1 = 5;
// Or
test_ref_1.value = 5;
// Or declare and initialize with `5`:
rvar('test_ref_2', 5);
// ------------------------------
// Test Code
// Test Function
function Fn1(v) { v.value = 100; }
// Test
function test(fn) { console.log(fn.toString()); console.info(fn()); }
// Declare
rvar('test_ref_number');
// First assign
test_ref_number = 5;
test(() => test_ref_number.value === 5);
// Call function with reference
Fn1(test_ref_number);
test(() => test_ref_number.value === 100);
// Increase value
test_ref_number++;
test(() => test_ref_number.value === 101);
// Update value
test_ref_number = test_ref_number - 10;
test(() => test_ref_number.value === 91);

Yet another approach to pass any (local, primitive) variables by reference is by wrapping variable with closure "on the fly" by eval. This also works with "use strict". (Note: be aware that eval is not friendly to JavaScript optimizers, and also missing quotes around variable name may cause unpredictive results)
"use strict"
// Return text that will reference variable by name (by capturing that variable to closure)
function byRef(varName){
return "({get value(){return "+varName+";}, set value(v){"+varName+"=v;}})";
}
// Demo
// Assign argument by reference
function modifyArgument(argRef, multiplier){
argRef.value = argRef.value * multiplier;
}
(function(){
var x = 10;
alert("x before: " + x);
modifyArgument(eval(byRef("x")), 42);
alert("x after: " + x);
})()
Live sample: https://jsfiddle.net/t3k4403w/

There's actually a pretty sollution:
function updateArray(context, targetName, callback) {
context[targetName] = context[targetName].map(callback);
}
var myArray = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
updateArray(this, 'myArray', item => {return '_' + item});
console.log(myArray); //(3) ["_a", "_b", "_c"]

I personally dislike the "pass by reference" functionality offered by various programming languages. Perhaps that's because I am just discovering the concepts of functional programming, but I always get goosebumps when I see functions that cause side effects (like manipulating parameters passed by reference). I personally strongly embrace the "single responsibility" principle.
IMHO, a function should return just one result/value using the return keyword. Instead of modifying a parameter/argument, I would just return the modified parameter/argument value and leave any desired reassignments up to the calling code.
But sometimes (hopefully very rarely), it is necessary to return two or more result values from the same function. In that case, I would opt to include all those resulting values in a single structure or object. Again, processing any reassignments should be up to the calling code.
Example:
Suppose passing parameters would be supported by using a special keyword like 'ref' in the argument list. My code might look something like this:
//The Function
function doSomething(ref value) {
value = "Bar";
}
//The Calling Code
var value = "Foo";
doSomething(value);
console.log(value); //Bar
Instead, I would actually prefer to do something like this:
//The Function
function doSomething(value) {
value = "Bar";
return value;
}
//The Calling Code:
var value = "Foo";
value = doSomething(value); //Reassignment
console.log(value); //Bar
When I would need to write a function that returns multiple values, I would not use parameters passed by reference either. So I would avoid code like this:
//The Function
function doSomething(ref value) {
value = "Bar";
//Do other work
var otherValue = "Something else";
return otherValue;
}
//The Calling Code
var value = "Foo";
var otherValue = doSomething(value);
console.log(value); //Bar
console.log(otherValue); //Something else
Instead, I would actually prefer to return both new values inside an object, like this:
//The Function
function doSomething(value) {
value = "Bar";
//Do more work
var otherValue = "Something else";
return {
value: value,
otherValue: otherValue
};
}
//The Calling Code:
var value = "Foo";
var result = doSomething(value);
value = result.value; //Reassignment
console.log(value); //Bar
console.log(result.otherValue);
These code examples are quite simplified, but it roughly demonstrates how I personally would handle such stuff. It helps me to keep various responsibilities in the correct place.
Happy coding. :)

I've been playing around with syntax to do this sort of thing, but it requires some helpers that are a little unusual. It starts with not using 'var' at all, but a simple 'DECLARE' helper that creates a local variable and defines a scope for it via an anonymous callback. By controlling how variables are declared, we can choose to wrap them into objects so that they can always be passed by reference, essentially. This is similar to one of the Eduardo Cuomo's answer above, but the solution below does not require using strings as variable identifiers. Here's some minimal code to show the concept.
function Wrapper(val){
this.VAL = val;
}
Wrapper.prototype.toString = function(){
return this.VAL.toString();
}
function DECLARE(val, callback){
var valWrapped = new Wrapper(val);
callback(valWrapped);
}
function INC(ref){
if(ref && ref.hasOwnProperty('VAL')){
ref.VAL++;
}
else{
ref++;//or maybe throw here instead?
}
return ref;
}
DECLARE(5, function(five){ //consider this line the same as 'let five = 5'
console.log("five is now " + five);
INC(five); // increment
console.log("five is incremented to " + five);
});

Actually it is really easy. The problem is understanding that once passing classic arguments, you are scoped into another, read-only zone.
The solution is to pass the arguments using JavaScript's object-oriented design. It is the same as putting the arguments in a global/scoped variable, but better...
function action(){
/* Process this.arg, modification allowed */
}
action.arg = [["empty-array"], "some string", 0x100, "last argument"];
action();
You can also promise stuff up to enjoy the well-known chain:
Here is the whole thing, with promise-like structure
function action(){
/* Process this.arg, modification allowed */
this.arg = ["a", "b"];
}
action.setArg = function(){this.arg = arguments; return this;}
action.setArg(["empty-array"], "some string", 0x100, "last argument")()
Or better yet...
action.setArg(["empty-array"],"some string",0x100,"last argument").call()

JavaScript can modify array items inside a function (it is passed as a reference to the object/array).
function makeAllPretty(items) {
for (var x = 0; x < myArray.length; x++){
// Do stuff to the array
items[x] = makePretty(items[x]);
}
}
myArray = new Array(var1, var2, var3);
makeAllPretty(myArray);
Here's another example:
function inc(items) {
for (let i=0; i < items.length; i++) {
items[i]++;
}
}
let values = [1,2,3];
inc(values);
console.log(values);
// Prints [2,3,4]

Putting aside the pass-by-reference discussion, those still looking for a solution to the stated question could use:
const myArray = new Array(var1, var2, var3);
myArray.forEach(var => var = makePretty(var));

As we don't have javascript pass by reference functionality, the only way to do this is to make the function return the value and let the caller assign it:
So
"makePretty(myArray[x]);"
should be
"myArray[x] = makePretty(myArray[x]);"
This is in case you need assignment inside the function, if only mutation is necessary, then passing the object and mutating it should be enough

I know exactly what you mean. The same thing in Swift will be no problem. The bottom line is use let, not var.
The fact that primitives are passed by value, but the fact that the value of var i at the point of iteration is not copied into the anonymous function is quite surprising to say the least.
for (let i = 0; i < boxArray.length; i++) {
boxArray[i].onclick = function() { console.log(i) }; // Correctly prints the index
}

If you want to pass variables by reference, a better way to do that is by passing your arguments in an object and then start changing the value by using window:
window["varName"] = value;
Example:
// Variables with first values
var x = 1, b = 0, f = 15;
function asByReference (
argumentHasVars = {}, // Passing variables in object
newValues = []) // Pass new values in array
{
let VarsNames = [];
// Getting variables names one by one
for(let name in argumentHasVars)
VarsNames.push(name);
// Accessing variables by using window one by one
for(let i = 0; i < VarsNames.length; i += 1)
window[VarsNames[i]] = newValues[i]; // Set new value
}
console.log(x, b, f); // Output with first values
asByReference({x, b, f}, [5, 5, 5]); // Passing as by reference
console.log(x, b, f); // Output after changing values

I like to solve the lack of by reference in JavaScript like this example shows.
The essence of this is that you don't try to create a by reference. You instead use the return functionality and make it able to return multiple values. So there isn't any need to insert your values in arrays or objects.
var x = "First";
var y = "Second";
var z = "Third";
log('Before call:',x,y,z);
with (myFunc(x, y, z)) {x = a; y = b; z = c;} // <-- Way to call it
log('After call :',x,y,z);
function myFunc(a, b, c) {
a = "Changed first parameter";
b = "Changed second parameter";
c = "Changed third parameter";
return {a:a, b:b, c:c}; // <-- Return multiple values
}
function log(txt,p1,p2,p3) {
document.getElementById('msg').innerHTML += txt + '<br>' + p1 + '<br>' + p2 + '<br>' + p3 + '<br><br>'
}
<div id='msg'></div>

Using Destructuring here is an example where I have 3 variables, and on each I do the multiple operations:
If value is less than 0 then change to 0,
If greater than 255 then change to 1,
Otherwise dived the number by 255 to convert from a range of 0-255 to a range of 0-1.
let a = 52.4, b = -25.1, c = 534.5;
[a, b, c] = [a, b, c].map(n => n < 0 ? 0 : n > 255 ? 1 : n / 255);
console.log(a, b, c); // 0.20549019607843136 0 1

Number Objects Passed Into Functions by Reference

I was reading somewhere that when we pass an object into a function "...JavaScript always uses the Object by reference when it passes as argument..." What I think this implies is (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if the function was to modify the object in some way, it would change the original defined object. I tried illustrating this with some code and it does do what I think it does but when I try the example in the blog post with a Number obj, it doesn't change the original value in that object. Please see my jsbin: https://jsbin.com/wociro/edit?js,console,output
console.clear();
/**myobject Object**/
function myobject() {
this.value = 5;
}
var o = new myobject();
console.log("Original value of o: " + o.value); // o.value = 5
function objectchanger(fnc) {
fnc.value = 6;
}
objectchanger(o);
console.log("New value of o: " + o.value); // o.value is now equal to 6
/*Number Object*/
var num2 = new Number(2);
console.log("Original value of num2: " + num2);
function numberChanger(fnc) {
return fnc + 1;
}
console.log("num2 after running numberChanger: " + numberChanger(num2));
console.log("New value of num2: " + num2); //looks the same
Am I missing something?

Number objects are still objects. So their value is a reference, and if a function alters a property of an object passed as an argument, that object will be affected outside the function.
function changer(obj) {
obj.foo = 'bar';
}
var num = new Number(123);
console.log(num.foo); // undefined
changer(num);
console.log(num.foo); // 'bar'
However, the value wrapped inside the number object is not stored as a property. It's stored as a [[NumberData]] internal slot. ECMAScript provides no way to alter that slot, so you can't change the number.
Your attempt of fnc+1 unwraps the number object to get its [[NumberData]], and adds 1 to that. But the result is just discarded, it's not stored back in the [[NumberData]] slot of fnc.
If you want to be able to achieve something analogous to changing the [[NumberData]], you can
function MyNumber(num) {
this.__number__ = +num;
}
MyNumber.prototype = Object.create(Number.prototype);
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(Number.prototype).forEach(function(prop) {
var desc = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(Number.prototype, prop);
if(desc && desc.value && typeof desc.value == 'function') {
var native = desc.value;
desc.value = function() {
return native.apply(this.__number__, arguments);
};
Object.defineProperty(MyNumber.prototype, prop, desc);
}
});
var num = new MyNumber(123);
console.log(+num, num+'', num.toFixed(2)); // 123, "123", "123.00"
num.__number__ = 456;
console.log(+num, num+'', num.toFixed(2)); // 456, "456", "456.00"

I actually had a lot issues when I started getting into the object side of JavaScript myself. Best way I can explain is by these examples.
Objects link.
var obj = {a: 5};
var b = obj.a;
b = 2;
// obj.a: 2
// b: 2
This will link to the object value I believe. So if you change b it will also change obj.a.
HTML DOM object link with odd behavior
var x = document.getElementById("some_div_id");
x.innerHTML = "example"; // this works
var x = document.getElementById("some_div_id").innerHTML;
x = "example"; // this doesn't, it thinks that it's document.getElementById("some_div_id");
Took me time to figure what was wrong when I first did the second DOM method.
Variables are not linked but copied.
var a = 5;
var b = a;
b = 2;
// a: 5
// b: 2
As you can see, this doesn't link the value but creates a new one based from it.
Deep copying from objects trick.
function deepCopy(objValue) {
return JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(objValue));
}
var obj = {a: 5};
var b = deepCopy(obj.a);
b = 2;
// obj.a: 5
// b: 2
This was a trick given to me some time back when I had issues wanting a object value being stored in a variable and edited but without it being linked to the object value. After a while I found I never needed it after improving my coding skills.
Also last note. I read somewhere in clean JavaScript coding that you shouldn't need to use the new object method unless it's a Date() object or or simulated class, or you may run into typeof and value check issues with ===.
Can't be certain if this is error free but hope this helps explains better.

In Javascript, objects refer to an array, indicated by [] or an object {}. You can verify the type of the variable by using typeof. These are passed by reference.
typeof [2, 5, 3] //object
typeof { a: 10} // object
If you pass the object literal to a function and modify the value of the property 'a', it would result in the value being modified.

Javascript Number Prototype Set Value Directly [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Javascript using prototype how can I set the value of "this" for a number?
(3 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I try to set a number directly from a prototype method.
Usually, a new value is returned.
this of a number object, is also an object. But I guess not a reference. (?)
I have this:
Number.prototype.bitSet = function(bit) {
return this | (1<<bit);
};
But want this:
Number.prototype.bitSet = function(bit) {
this.value = this | (1<<bit);
};
this.value is a pseudo property. Becuase this sould be a reference of the number and without that, you'll overwrite it. But the question is: Is this really a reference to the source number? Is it possible to do that? Assign the value directly to the number who called this method?
var num = 0;
num.bitSet(9);
console.log(num); // num = 512
Btw. chrome console prints [[PrimitiveValue]] for the number.

TL;DR - You can't do that, your initial version of bitSet is how you need to define it. You'll need to save its return value when you use it, e.g., x = x.bitSet(2). You can create your own mutable number object, though, if you like. (More on that below.)
Just for clarity (you probably know this): JavaScript has both number primitives and Number objects. Normally, you're dealing with primitives. The reason Number.prototype works is that a temporary object is created using the primitive's value when a method is called on it. Unless something explicitly saves the object, though, it's as though we were just dealing with primitives.
Numbers are not mutable in JavaScript.1 So your bitSet method cannot change the numeric value of what it's called on; instead, it has to return a new number with the changes made (e.g., your original version).
Note that even if you could change a Number object's value, you're almost never dealing with a number object in code outside functions you've assigned to Number.prototype. For instance:
Number.prototype.bitSet = function(bit) {
return this | (1<<bit);
};
var x = 32;
x = x.bitSet(2);
console.log(x); // 36
console.log(typeof x); // "number", not "object"
var o = new Number(36);
console.log(typeof o); // "object"
In the above, when x = x.bitSet(2); is executed, the number primitive is converted to a temporary Number object, your bitSet method is called, and then the result is whatever your bitSet method returns; unless bitSet does something to store this somewhere, the temporary object is then thrown away. (That's the theory; in fact, your JavaScript engine may well optimize away the object entirely, if it can determine that the code in your function only uses the number as though it were a primitive number.)
So suppose in my code above, we did something to change the state of the Number object in that x.bitSet(2) line. Since that object is temporary and not stored anywhere (unless we store it; it's not in x, x contains a primitive number), whatever we stored on the object would be lost. We can even prove that:
Number.prototype.test = function() {
this.foo = Math.random();
console.log("this.foo", this.foo); // some number
};
var x = 42;
x.test();
console.log(typeof x); // "number", not "object"
console.log("x.foo", x.foo); // undefined
this was definitely an object, we added a property to it and used that property. But x still had the primitive.
You could have your own mutable number type, though:
function MyNumber(value) {
this.value = typeof value === "number" ? value : 0;
}
MyNumber.prototype.bitSet = function(bit) {
this.value = this.value | (1 << bit);
};
MyNumber.prototype.valueOf = function() {
return this.value;
};
MyNumber.prototype.toString = function() {
return this.value.toString();
};
// Usage:
var m = new MyNumber(42);
m.bitSet(2);
console.log(String(m)); // "46"
var n = m + 5;
console.log(n); // 51
The valueOf function is called any time the JavaScript engine needs to convert your number object to a number. toString is called when the JavaScript engine needs to convert your number object to a string.
Or in ES2015:
class MyNumber {
constructor(value) {
this.value = typeof value === "number" ? value : 0;
}
bitSet(bit) {
this.value = this.value | (1 << bit);
}
valueOf() {
return this.value;
}
toString() {
return this.value.toString();
}
}
// Usage:
var m = new MyNumber(42);
m.bitSet(2);
console.log(String(m)); // "46"
var n = m + 5;
console.log(n); // 51
1 "Numbers are not mutable in JavaScript" Technically, that's not true. Primitive numbers are not mutable, but Number objects are — but their underlying numeric value (what the spec calls its [[NumberData]]) cannot be changed. (Number objects can have other properties with state that can be changed, just not their numeric value.) So "Numbers are not mutable in JavaScript" is a reasonable shorthand statement, if not perfectly correct.

Javascript Objects - Passed by Value or reference? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Is JavaScript a pass-by-reference or pass-by-value language?
(33 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
Does JavaScript pass by references or pass by values?
Here is an example from JavaScript: The Good Parts. I am very confused about the my parameter for the rectangle function. It is actually undefined, and redefined inside the function. There are no original reference. If I remove it from the function parameter, the inside area function is not able to access it.
Is it a closure? But no function is returned.
var shape = function (config) {
var that = {};
that.name = config.name || "";
that.area = function () {
return 0;
};
return that;
};
var rectangle = function (config, my) {
my = my || {};
my.l = config.length || 1;
my.w = config.width || 1;
var that = shape(config);
that.area = function () {
return my.l * my.w;
};
return that;
};
myShape = shape({
name: "Unhnown"
});
myRec = rectangle({
name: "Rectangle",
length: 4,
width: 6
});
console.log(myShape.name + " area is " + myShape.area() + " " + myRec.name + " area is " + myRec.area());

Primitives are passed by value, and Objects are passed by "copy of a reference".
Specifically, when you pass an object (or array) you are (invisibly) passing a reference to that object, and it is possible to modify the contents of that object, but if you attempt to overwrite the reference it will not affect the copy of the reference held by the caller - i.e. the reference itself is passed by value:
function replace(ref) {
ref = {}; // this code does _not_ affect the object passed
}
function update(ref) {
ref.key = 'newvalue'; // this code _does_ affect the _contents_ of the object
}
var a = { key: 'value' };
replace(a); // a still has its original value - it's unmodfied
update(a); // the _contents_ of 'a' are changed

Think of it like this:
Whenever you create an object in ECMAscript, this object is formed in a mystique ECMAscript universal place where no man will ever be able to get. All you get back is a reference to that object in this mystique place.
var obj = { };
Even obj is only a reference to the object (which is located in that special wonderful place) and hence, you can only pass this reference around. Effectively, any piece of code which accesses obj will modify the object which is far, far away.

My two cents.... It's irrelevant whether JavaScript passes parameters by reference or value. What really matters is assignment vs. mutation.
I wrote a longer, more detailed explanation in this link.
When you pass anything (whether that be an object or a primitive), all JavaScript does is assign a new variable while inside the function... just like using the equal sign (=).
How that parameter behaves inside the function is exactly the same as it would behave if you just assigned a new variable using the equal sign... Take these simple examples.
var myString = 'Test string 1';
// Assignment - A link to the same place as myString
var sameString = myString;
// If I change sameString, it will not modify myString,
// it just re-assigns it to a whole new string
sameString = 'New string';
console.log(myString); // Logs 'Test string 1';
console.log(sameString); // Logs 'New string';
If I were to pass myString as a parameter to a function, it behaves as if I simply assigned it to a new variable. Now, let's do the same thing, but with a function instead of a simple assignment
function myFunc(sameString) {
// Reassignment... Again, it will not modify myString
sameString = 'New string';
}
var myString = 'Test string 1';
// This behaves the same as if we said sameString = myString
myFunc(myString);
console.log(myString); // Again, logs 'Test string 1';
The only reason that you can modify objects when you pass them to a function is because you are not reassigning... Instead, objects can be changed or mutated.... Again, it works the same way.
var myObject = { name: 'Joe'; }
// Assignment - We simply link to the same object
var sameObject = myObject;
// This time, we can mutate it. So a change to myObject affects sameObject and visa versa
myObject.name = 'Jack';
console.log(sameObject.name); // Logs 'Jack'
sameObject.name = 'Jill';
console.log(myObject.name); // Logs 'Jill'
// If we re-assign it, the link is lost
sameObject = { name: 'Howard' };
console.log(myObject.name); // Logs 'Jill'
If I were to pass myObject as a parameter to a function, it behaves as if I simply assigned it to a new variable. Again, the same thing with the exact same behavior but with a function.
function myFunc(sameObject) {
// We mutate the object, so the myObject gets the change too... just like before.
sameObject.name = 'Jill';
// But, if we re-assign it, the link is lost
sameObject = {
name: 'Howard'
};
}
var myObject = {
name: 'Joe'
};
// This behaves the same as if we said sameObject = myObject;
myFunc(myObject);
console.log(myObject.name); // Logs 'Jill'
Every time you pass a variable to a function, you are "assigning" to whatever the name of the parameter is, just like if you used the equal = sign.
Always remember that the equals sign = means assignment.
And passing a parameter to a function also means assignment.
They are the same and the two variables are connected in exactly the same way.
The only time that modifying a variable affects a different variable is when the underlying object is mutated.
There is no point in making a distinction between objects and primitives, because it works the same exact way as if you didn't have a function and just used the equal sign to assign to a new variable.

Function arguments are passed either by-value or by-sharing, but never ever by reference in JavaScript!
Call-by-Value
Primitive types are passed by-value:
var num = 123, str = "foo";
function f(num, str) {
num += 1;
str += "bar";
console.log("inside of f:", num, str);
}
f(num, str);
console.log("outside of f:", num, str);
Reassignments inside a function scope are not visible in the surrounding scope.
This also applies to Strings, which are a composite data type and yet immutable:
var str = "foo";
function f(str) {
str[0] = "b"; // doesn't work, because strings are immutable
console.log("inside of f:", str);
}
f(str);
console.log("outside of f:", str);
Call-by-Sharing
Objects, that is to say all types that are not primitives, are passed by-sharing. A variable that holds a reference to an object actually holds merely a copy of this reference. If JavaScript would pursue a call-by-reference evaluation strategy, the variable would hold the original reference. This is the crucial difference between by-sharing and by-reference.
What are the practical consequences of this distinction?
var o = {x: "foo"}, p = {y: 123};
function f(o, p) {
o.x = "bar"; // Mutation
p = {x: 456}; // Reassignment
console.log("o inside of f:", o);
console.log("p inside of f:", p);
}
f(o, p);
console.log("o outside of f:", o);
console.log("p outside of f:", p);
Mutating means to modify certain properties of an existing Object. The reference copy that a variable is bound to and that refers to this object remains the same. Mutations are thus visible in the caller's scope.
Reassigning means to replace the reference copy bound to a variable. Since it is only a copy, other variables holding a copy of the same reference remain unaffected. Reassignments are thus not visible in the caller's scope like they would be with a call-by-reference evaluation strategy.
Further information on evaluation strategies in ECMAScript.

As with C, ultimately, everything is passed by value. Unlike C, you can't actually back up and pass the location of a variable, because it doesn't have pointers, just references.
And the references it has are all to objects, not variables. There are several ways of achieving the same result, but they have to be done by hand, not just adding a keyword at either the call or declaration site.

JavaScript is pass by value.
For primitives, primitive's value is passed. For Objects, Object's reference "value" is passed.
Example with Object:
var f1 = function(inputObject){
inputObject.a = 2;
}
var f2 = function(){
var inputObject = {"a": 1};
f1(inputObject);
console.log(inputObject.a);
}
Calling f2 results in printing out "a" value as 2 instead of 1, as the reference is passed and the "a" value in reference is updated.
Example with primitive:
var f1 = function(a){
a = 2;
}
var f2 = function(){
var a = 1;
f1(a);
console.log(a);
}
Calling f2 results in printing out "a" value as 1.

In the interest of creating a simple example that uses const...
const myRef = { foo: 'bar' };
const myVal = true;
function passes(r, v) {
r.foo = 'baz';
v = false;
}
passes(myRef, myVal);
console.log(myRef, myVal); // Object {foo: "baz"} true

In practical terms, Alnitak is correct and makes it easy to understand, but ultimately in JavaScript, everything is passed by value.
What is the "value" of an object? It is the object reference.
When you pass in an object, you get a copy of this value (hence the 'copy of a reference' that Alnitak described). If you change this value, you do not change the original object; you are changing your copy of that reference.

"Global" JavaScript variables are members of the window object. You could access the reference as a member of the window object.
var v = "initialized";
function byref(ref) {
window[ref] = "changed by ref";
}
byref((function(){for(r in window){if(window[r]===v){return(r);}}})());
// It could also be called like... byref('v');
console.log(v); // outputs changed by ref
Note, the above example will not work for variables declared within a function.

Without purisms, I think that the best way to emulate scalar argument by reference in JavaScript is using object, like previous an answer tells.
However, I do a little bit different:
I've made the object assignment inside function call, so one can see the reference parameters near the function call. It increases the source readability.
In function declaration, I put the properties like a comment, for the very same reason: readability.
var r;
funcWithRefScalars(r = {amount:200, message:null} );
console.log(r.amount + " - " + r.message);
function funcWithRefScalars(o) { // o(amount, message)
o.amount *= 1.2;
o.message = "20% increase";
}
In the above example, null indicates clearly an output reference parameter.
The exit:
240 - 20% Increase
On the client-side, console.log should be replaced by alert.
★ ★ ★
Another method that can be even more readable:
var amount, message;
funcWithRefScalars(amount = [200], message = [null] );
console.log(amount[0] + " - " + message[0]);
function funcWithRefScalars(amount, message) { // o(amount, message)
amount[0] *= 1.2;
message[0] = "20% increase";
}
Here you don't even need to create new dummy names, like r above.

I can't see pass-by-reference in the examples where people try to demonstrate such. I only see pass-by-value.
In the case of variables that hold a reference to an object, the reference is the value of those variables, and therefore the reference is passed, which is then pass-by-value.
In a statement like this,
var a = {
b: "foo",
c: "bar"
};
the value of the 'a' is not the Object, but the (so far only) reference to it. In other words, the object is not in the variable a - a reference to it is. I think this is something that seems difficult for programmers who are mainly only familiar with JavaScript. But it is easy for people who know also e.g. Java, C#, and C.

Objects are always pass by reference and primitives by value. Just keep that parameter at the same address for objects.
Here's some code to illustrate what I mean (try it in a JavaScript sandbox such as https://js.do/).
Unfortunately you can't only retain the address of the parameter; you retain all the original member values as well.
a = { key: 'bevmo' };
testRetain(a);
document.write(' after function ');
document.write(a.key);
function testRetain (b)
{
document.write(' arg0 is ');
document.write(arguments[0].key);
b.key = 'passed by reference';
var retain = b; // Retaining the original address of the parameter
// Address of left set to address of right, changes address of parameter
b = {key: 'vons'}; // Right is a new object with a new address
document.write(' arg0 is ');
document.write(arguments[0].key);
// Now retrieve the original address of the parameter for pass by reference
b = retain;
document.write(' arg0 is ');
document.write(arguments[0].key);
}
Result:
arg0 is bevmo arg0 is vons arg0 is passed by reference after function passed by reference

Primitives are passed by value. But in case you only need to read the value of a primitve (and value is not known at the time when function is called) you can pass function which retrieves the value at the moment you need it.
function test(value) {
console.log('retrieve value');
console.log(value());
}
// call the function like this
var value = 1;
test(() => value);

How to make an object "live" in Javascript without tying it to the DOM

I asked in IRC chat yesterday whether it was possible to have an element update with any changes to an object it references, rather than just keep the value it was given upon being declared. For example
Arr1 = [1,2,3]
i1 = Arr1.length-1
last1 = Arr1[i1]
Arr1.push(4)
Checking last1 at the end of this (arbitrary) example shows it has not updated to reflect the newly added value of 4, so objects in JS aren't "live" by default.
I'm a beginner but I'd worked this out from practice already, but was told this was actually the case... I guess my question wasn't understood.
NodeList objects are "live" however, and I'm wondering if there are other types of object in JS that do so, as it would obviously save lines of code spent updating them.

One important distinction here is that i1 does not "reference" anything here. It is simply storing the numeric result of the expression Arr1.length-1 when that line executed. Likewise, last1 may or may not reference the value that was the third element of Arr1 when line 3 executed, but it maintains no reference to Arr1 itself or anything about it.
As in some other programming languages, variables that are assigned to objects are references, so you can do this:
var obj1 = { prop1: "hello", prop2: "goodbye" };
var obj2 = obj1;
obj2.prop1 = "buongiorno";
console.log(obj1.prop1); // result is "buongiorno"
But this doesn't seem to be quite what you're describing.
It sounds like what you're describing is some sort of reactive programming. JavaScript doesn't really work the way you're imagining, but you could accomplish this using closures:
var Arr1 = [1,2,3];
var i1 = function() { return Arr1.length - 1; };
var last1 = function() { return Arr1[i1()]; };
console.log(i1()); // result is 2
console.log(last1()); // result is 3
Arr1.push(4);
console.log(i1()); // result is 3
console.log(last1()); // result is 4
Note that here, the () parentheses at the end are required to call these functions and get their current value.
One even trickier thing you could do is the following:
function capture(fcn) {
return { valueOf: fcn, toString: function() { return fcn().toString(); } };
}
var Arr1 = [1,2,3]
var i1 = capture(function() { return Arr1.length - 1; });
var last1 = capture(function() { return Arr1[i1]; });
console.log(last1 * 5); // result is 15
Arr1.push(4);
console.log(last1 * 5); // result is 20
Note however that this second technique has its limitations. You have to coerce the values into the type that you would expect or call their .valueOf() method in order for them to produce an actual value. If you just used:
console.log(last1);
You would not get any sort of friendly result.

I interpret your question as why are some variables which are copies are updated when you change the original value and others are not.
This is because some types of variables are Reference Types and others are Value Types. Numbers, dates and strings are value types and are copied whenever you assign them to a variable. Objects, Arrays (which are also an Object) are reference types and are not copied, just referenced.
This example is using value types and any change to the first variable will not be copied:
var foo = 1;
var bar = foo; // this is copying the value from the foo variable to bar
foo = 2;
console.log(bar); // 1
compared to the same thing but with a reference to an object:
var foo = {prop:1};
var bar = foo; // this is creating a reference to the foo object
foo.prop = 2;
console.log(bar.prop); // 2