Angular-styleguide: JavaScript Closure should be renamed just IIFE, because Closure and IIFE are two separate things.

Maybe in C there is no closure but in JavaScript "An IIFE is often used to create scope to encapsulate modules. Within the module there is a private scope that is self-contained and safe from unwanted or accidental modification. This technique, called the module pattern, is a powerful example of using closures to manage scope".

http://www.sitepoint.com/demystifying-javascript-closures-callbacks-iifes/

that is incorrect concept. Isolating local variables inside of a local scope is IIFE and has nothing to do with a closure at all.

I (sort of) agree with @jianlin here. There is typically no closures involved in registering an Angular service/controller/filter/directive/etc inside an IIFE (as suggested in this guide).

An IIFE is often used to create scope to encapsulate modules

@MAustinMMDP, because it _"is ofter used"_, it doesn't mean it is used _every time_.
Angular has it's own module system, so (as far as I understand this styleguide) IIFEs are not used as a means to encapsulate modules, but as a way to isolate local variables (e.g. a function declarations) from the global context.

In that sense, the quote from http://www.sitepoint.com/demystifying-javascript-closures-callbacks-iifes/ is correct (in general) but irrelevant (in this particular case).

actually the line on SitePoint really should say something like:

An IIFE is often used to create scope to encapsulate modules. Within the module there is a private scope that is self-contained and safe from unwanted or accidental modification. This technique, called the module pattern, is a powerful example of using [local scope, or a function with local scope, or simply, a function] to manage scope, and it’s heavily used in many of the modern JavaScript libraries

what it means is:

the module pattern, is a powerful example of using a local scope to prevent leaking into the global scope.

It should just say "Scope"