JavaScript
-
Yup. It's completely inconsistent in its interpretation of the + operator.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Yeah, I actually had to try 1+"11" to check that it didn't give me 12, but thankfully
it commutesit's consistent
-
This is too stupid so I had to check.
Fuck me.
Fuck me.
-
Yeah, I actually had to try 1+"11" to check that it didn't give me 12, but thankfully
it commutesit's consistentit commutes
Maybe the behaviour with regard to type conversion, but not for the operation itself.
"13"+12 and 12+"13" don't yield the same result.
-
Unfortunately, it makes sense if you know what + means, which is concatenate. - is strictly a math function though.
Not saying that makes this better. It just makes sense.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It is 'comprehensible' in the sense that it's possible to figure out how it happened, but it absolutely does not "make sense" in terms of being a reasonable language design decision. It's 100% incompetence on the part of the person who created Javascript.
-
Should it, or should it be "1"? (just removing one, one)
Which "1" did it remove? And did it search the string to find a "1" to remove, or did it remove whichever character happened to be at array index 1?
-
People that try to do mathematical operations with strings blaming the programming language that had a stated design goal to do its best and try to keep running scripts that make no sense because they realized it would be used by people that have no idea what they are doing. Clearly they were right.
the programming language that had a stated design goal to do its best and try to keep running scripts that make no sense...
...itself makes no sense. It is wrong and bad that Javascript was ever designed that way in the first place.
-
This is too stupid so I had to check.
Fuck me.
I think I'm on the side of "if you do this in your code, you deserve what you get."
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
It's not that hard to understand what it is doing and why the decision was made to make it do that. JavaScript has a particular purpose and it's mission is not consistency.
It's not like TypeScript doesn't exist if you just get lightheaded at the idea of learning JavaScript's quirks and mastering using it despite them.
-
Hm, playing devil's advocate, I think it is because the minus has not been defined as a string operation (e.g. it could pop the last char), so it defaults to the mathematical operation and converts both inputs into ints.
The first is assumed to be a concat because one of the parcels is a string...
It's just doing a lot of stuff for you that it shouldn't be in first place 🤭
It's just doing a lot of stuff for you that it shouldn't be in first place 🤭
Kinda like log4j!
-
People that try to do mathematical operations with strings blaming the programming language that had a stated design goal to do its best and try to keep running scripts that make no sense because they realized it would be used by people that have no idea what they are doing. Clearly they were right.
it would be used by people that have no idea what they are doing. Clearly
And so let's enable these people?
Let's add AI to the mix while we're at it. -
Which "1" did it remove? And did it search the string to find a "1" to remove, or did it remove whichever character happened to be at array index 1?
The one at the end. Subtraction is the opposite of addition. If addition adds a character to the end of the string, it must follow that subtraction would remove a character from the end of the string.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Feels like it could be one of those facebook posts to test "smart" people. Only the top 1% of people can answer this simple math question: "11" + 2 * 2 - 3
-
the programming language that had a stated design goal to do its best and try to keep running scripts that make no sense...
...itself makes no sense. It is wrong and bad that Javascript was ever designed that way in the first place.
It was never intended to run full applications but only the small business scripts and hobbyist homepage stuff that were the thing in the 90s, across inconsistent browsers that were a jungle of hit and miss behaviour where it was preferred that menus keep working even if the mouse effect was not. Anything of scale was expected to be done in Java. Dynamic web pages did not exist and as anything not static was generated server side into a static html file to be rendered on the client.
Anyway, back then it wasn't considered the job of the programming language to hold the hand of the aspiring developer as it is common today. It's not a bad thing that IDE and even compilers and preprocessors try to help you write better code today, but then it simply didn't exist.
JavaScript is from a different time and because it has the hard requirement or backwards compatibility there is no changing it and has not been for thirty years except to add stuff to it.
I think it's just silly to ask the past to keep up with the present. Bad code is not the fault of the language regardless, even though junior devs and even seasoned ones like to think so to protect their ego. I think it is better to accept it, learn from it and roll with it because every single platform and language has their weird quirks anyway.
Signed, old dude that learned programming in 8 bit BASIC and 6502 machine code without an assembler, where code bad enough would freeze your machine that required a cold boot and starting over from your last save that you didn't do.
-
it would be used by people that have no idea what they are doing. Clearly
And so let's enable these people?
Let's add AI to the mix while we're at it.Now that you mention it, it is a bit funny how Lemmy is hating LLMs as a code generation tool while also hating on the interpreter for their own hand typed code not running.
-
It was never intended to run full applications but only the small business scripts and hobbyist homepage stuff that were the thing in the 90s, across inconsistent browsers that were a jungle of hit and miss behaviour where it was preferred that menus keep working even if the mouse effect was not. Anything of scale was expected to be done in Java. Dynamic web pages did not exist and as anything not static was generated server side into a static html file to be rendered on the client.
Anyway, back then it wasn't considered the job of the programming language to hold the hand of the aspiring developer as it is common today. It's not a bad thing that IDE and even compilers and preprocessors try to help you write better code today, but then it simply didn't exist.
JavaScript is from a different time and because it has the hard requirement or backwards compatibility there is no changing it and has not been for thirty years except to add stuff to it.
I think it's just silly to ask the past to keep up with the present. Bad code is not the fault of the language regardless, even though junior devs and even seasoned ones like to think so to protect their ego. I think it is better to accept it, learn from it and roll with it because every single platform and language has their weird quirks anyway.
Signed, old dude that learned programming in 8 bit BASIC and 6502 machine code without an assembler, where code bad enough would freeze your machine that required a cold boot and starting over from your last save that you didn't do.
Anyway, back then it wasn't considered the job of the programming language to hold the hand of the aspiring developer as it is common today.
But that’s exactly what it’s doing by trying to figure out what the developer meant. ‘“11” + 1’, should cause the compiler to tell the developer to to fuck themselves.
-
The one at the end. Subtraction is the opposite of addition. If addition adds a character to the end of the string, it must follow that subtraction would remove a character from the end of the string.
This is how we end up with an endian schism
-
People that try to do mathematical operations with strings blaming the programming language that had a stated design goal to do its best and try to keep running scripts that make no sense because they realized it would be used by people that have no idea what they are doing. Clearly they were right.
There's also Chefkoch and Mozart for that purpose.
-
It is 'comprehensible' in the sense that it's possible to figure out how it happened, but it absolutely does not "make sense" in terms of being a reasonable language design decision. It's 100% incompetence on the part of the person who created Javascript.
I mean, I'd never try to do this anyway because if the types aren't the same unexpected things can happen. That's like programming 101.
-
Now that you mention it, it is a bit funny how Lemmy is hating LLMs as a code generation tool while also hating on the interpreter for their own hand typed code not running.
I seldom use an interpreter.
-
This is too stupid so I had to check.
Fuck me.
From all the Javascript quiks this is the least stupid and the most obvious.
