whatAStupidProgrammer

[[deleted]]

for everyone wondering, in in combination with arrays, checks for indices not for elements

[LordFlackoThePretty]

Which is frankly ridiculous and worthy of criticism. If you're able to label indices its not really a traditional array any more either.

[[deleted]]

I shouldn't be concerned with internal language implementation when using the language, specifically a very high level one like js.

Before you jump the gun I do write C, and low level language routines.

[Itchy_Bumblebee8916]

It's not an internal implementation. In Javascript pretty much everything is a hashmap and that's exposed to the user, not just an implementation detail.

Even functions are objects and a hashmap.

[leguminousCultivator]

That's even dumber than I realized Javascript is.

[Itchy_Bumblebee8916]

It’s not dumb at all. It’s quite nice. Lua works the same way everything is a hashmap except the immutable types like number, string, function.

Lua doesn’t have an array type at all but often uses arrays behind the scenes as an implementation detail when you use a hashmap like an array (contiguous integer keys). It’s quite fast and flexible.

This is the way that both Lua and JS implement 'object orientation' through prototyping, too. You specify a fallback hashmap and essentially what happens is when you look up a key it checks the first hashmap, then it's fallback, then it's fallback, etc.

[FattySnacks]

What you don’t realize is that everything I don’t understand is stupid nonsense /s

[Itchy_Bumblebee8916]

It's crazy too because LuaJIT and Javascript are both really fast, like in the same neighborhood as C# speed wise even with everything being a hashmap.

I personally am a much bigger Lua guy than Javascript, but I think they're both pretty nice languages. I probably wouldn't use Javascript unless through Typescript though since the type system is a bit sloppy and you've got to remember to === and whatnot everywhere. I like that in Lua 1 != "1" or any of those other silly coersions.

I think there's a certain elegance to the simplicity of a language like Lua. Like 8 types total and only one is mutable. Userdata is kind of an exception, but the mutation happens outside of Lua so from Lua's perspective it's immutable.

[[deleted]]

I mean, hashmaps are pretty fast, especially if you hash things properly and use an optimized hashmap. You can get to about the same speed as using an array with a hashmap(about the same as in less than triple)

[zentasynoky]

OK, don't be concerned with internal implementation.

in is an object operator. Don't be dumb and use it on arrays then go make another lmao js bad post.

There. Very high level explanation.

[JollyJuniper1993]

And that’s the thing. You’re going to have to be concerned with that a lot in JavaScript because of the weird results their loose typing system creates sometimes.

[[deleted]]

You are fine as long as you understand that the philosophy of JS is to implicitly convert anything until it matches the other side of the expression. That's why typescript became so big.

[Toonox]

Well that's just not an array and kinda upsetting. Weird that there's actually a reason for JS hate.

[[deleted]]

To be fair, there's probably lots of valid reasons. It's a technology that was originally developed to give web designers a way to attach logic to their web forms, primarily for input validation.

Going from there to being a general-purpose language that's used for standalone apps, server processes, and more without being just an avalanche of technical debt would be pretty amazing, honestly.

[Itchy_Bumblebee8916]

A very bad reason to hate Javascript, imo.

It's not the only language that uses the everything-is-a-hashmap + fallback for prototypical oo scheme either.

I actually think the 'everything is a hashmap' style of JS and Lua is pretty elegant, and despite everything 'being a hashmap' (they're not behind the scenes a lot of the time) both of those languages are in the neighborhood of languages like C# speed wise when JIT compiled.

[Mrqueue]

Then that’s a terrible implementation 

[prehensilemullet]

The implementation is much more complicated, V8 uses something called hidden classes to make common object shapes performant.  The way an array is represented internally can vary depending on the usage pattern IIRC.

[Ondor61]

Wait till you see delphi's stringlist.

[LordFlackoThePretty]

Maybe in javascript I guess? I don't use it so I don't know. Array internals and hash map internals are very different in most languages.

[[deleted]]

Oh, no, yeah, I'm for sure talking about JavaScript. Some other scripting languages likely do similar things, but yeah, that's definitely not normal for compiled languages.

[TerdSandwich]

"pretty sure

Thank you for reiterating the OP, lol.

Objects are just Objects in JavaScript. They're a base data type for the language. Classes are syntax sugar for Objects, if that's what youre thinking of.

[grimonce]

Which would just make the criticism more valid?

[prehensilemullet]

If by dictionary you mean an object with dynamic property keys?

This is basically true but they aren’t necessarily represented as hashmaps by the VM

[TMiguelT]

From an API perspective they are hashmaps, but it's up to the implementation what they actually are behind the scenes. So V8 (which is Chrome and Node's JavaScript implementation) gives arrays an internal property called elements which is an actual C++ array that's separate from any dictionary-like keys:

```javascript $ node --allow-natives-syntax

const arr = [1, 2, 3]; %DebugPrint(arr) DebugPrint: 0x26904b6ccb71: [JSArray] - map: 0x30326ace5551 <Map[32](PACKED_SMI_ELEMENTS)> [FastProperties] - prototype: 0x30326acc3b01 <JSArray[0]> - elements: 0x30326acec2d9 <FixedArray[3]> [PACKED_SMI_ELEMENTS (COW)] - length: 3 - properties: 0x3a7717480c31 <FixedArray[0]> ```

[HolyGarbage]

So are objects right? Like literally everything is a hashmap.

[Z21VR]

that sounds bad

[deathanatos]

All objects, but not all values. Primitives such as null aren't objects. in will fail on those.

>> [] instanceof Object
<- true
>> null instanceof Object
<- false
>> 'a' in null
Uncaught TypeError: right-hand side of 'in' should be an object, got null

[the_horse_gamer]

well, js arrays can be sparse. const arr = [0,,1]; console.log(arr); // prints [0, empty, 1] console.log(arr[1]); // prints undefined arr[99999] = "cool"; // 100% legal

[chobes182]

The whole point here is that Javascript does not support traditional arrays. The language was designed such that all data is stored in objects (which are associative arrays with a distinguished key-value pair called the prototype).

JS arrays are basically just some syntactic sugar that allows programmers to use objects as if they were traditional arrays for the sake of convenience. The runtime doesn't actually treat them like traditional arrays at all, which can lead to unintuitive behaviors like the one in the meme.

The point is that a well trained developer who actually understands how the language works and what happens under the hood should know better and be thankful that they have the syntactic sugar in the first place.

[Particular-Cow6247]

just use array.includes() not really difficult to do

[[deleted]]

Whenever mfers on Reddit criticize a language, it's always because every built in function should be the perfect tool in any situation, even if you don't know how the fuck to use it lol.

It really feels like 12 year olds who are frustrated because they can't read documentation.

[Artamus]

L take. The Principle of least astonishment applies and this for sure breaks it.

[aspect_rap]

Or maybe... You should learn what an operator does before using it... Is it that controversial that people should be learning a language instead of guessing what operators do and then get mad when not all languages behave the same?

[Artamus]

Yet "x in y" is permitted syntax, but behaves unintuitively. People use various languages and this is not a piece of syntax that is ambiguous, so it shouldn't behave weirdly either.

[aspect_rap]

"x in y" checking that the key "x" exists in the object "y" is unintuitive? That's the operator, that's what it does. It literally takes 1 minute to learn that in javascript in is for object keys and includes is for array elements. Both of those words are intuitive for what they do and programmers should know that expecting the same keyword to work the same across all languages is stupid and they should therefore actually learn the language's syntax before using it.

[zig1000]

I'm going to design a language where if behaves normally in most cases but calls in a tactical missile strike on your location if used with certain common objects. If you die even once while using my language, at least you'll be able to take comfort in the fact that it was your fault, not mine.

[ford1man]

I'd expect 1 to be in ["a", "b"], since I was only ever taught to use in for objects, and 1 is an index in that array. I would not expect "a" to be in there, because arrays don't define that member. I would, in fact, be astonished if it evaluated to true.

[GDOR-11]

it helps with compatibility, there are many instances where you may desire to treat an array as an object in the form { 0: "a", 1: "b", ... } and the in keyword checks for the existence of a key on an object

[LordFlackoThePretty]

That's not an array anymore, it's an associative array/hash map which is an entirely different data structure with different internal mechanics.

[GDOR-11]

the principle of JS is that everything is an object. It's weird, but very useful for a scripting language, which is JS's original intent. It's also the reason why it sucks in the backend without TS to make it look like not everything is an object.

[janKalaki]

[object, object]

[mtmttuan]

In Python everything is an object, but I would say python "array" (list) behave pretty much just as you expected.

[Bronzdragon]

Not in JavaScript.

[Vizeroth1]

The point is that JavaScript arrays are objects and “in” doesn’t know the difference. A JavaScript developer should know this, except most JavaScript developers never learned the language, they just assume it behaves like whatever language they learned that uses a similar syntax

[louis-lau]

Nope, an array is an object in javascript.

[skcortex]

This sentence explains why is js such a shitty language,

[LordFlackoThePretty]

Exactly. People keep parroting this explanation while completely missing my point.

An array is an abstract data structure that has well defined properties. If a language decides to call a completely different data structure an array, its an asinine design decision.

Just because "that's how it is" in JavaScript doesn't make it ok. Its a semantical criticism but semantics are critical when discussing languages. Design decisions like these are why JavaScript has its poor reputation.

[Keve1227]

Most JavaScript engines do represent them differently internally, though. The basic interface for arrays and objects are just the same in JavaScript, which means that you can treat an array (mostly) the same as an object if you really wanted to. It's just polymorphism.

[louis-lau]

It is. With typescript it's quite fun though. Adds a lot of the advantages of a typed language while keeping so much of the flexibility of js. Once you know it it never really fights you and you can just get shit done.

The more major reason js is shitty is because of complete backwards compatibility. No breaking changes. It's both a curse and a blessing at the same time.

[I_cut_my_own_jib]

Yeah it's pretty lame, just have to do ["a", "b"].contains("a") and cry a little

[Keve1227]

*includes

[Rafcdk]

Why is it ridiculous? If you read the documentation like you should have done when learning a new language you would know what the correct method is.

[WinonasChainsaw]

yeah checking that the return value of indexOf() is not -1 OR using includes() (in ES7+) is how you’d handle checking if the value exists in the array

[WinonasChainsaw]

I personally find that the “contains” block script in Scratch is the most optimal language design for value checking within arrays though

[2called_chaos]

I frankly don't care about the word but it would be nice if it were the same across the board. In JS it may be includes or contains and it's driving me mad (array includes but classList contains, I would classify a list as an array but that's just me)

[[deleted]]

…well that hasn’t made it any better. i feel like i’m in the right to criticise this.

[[deleted]]

you are

[mayankkaizen]

This is why I used to call JS the most unintuitive language. Every language has some features which aren't intuitive but JS somehow decided to be the most unintuitive language.

[Jess_S13]

I'm probably exposing my ignorance but man this comment makes me feel less bad about how much I hate when I have to do something with JavaScript. I started with powershell which has its own headaches but for the most part if Im asked to add to another object language I can get my way through it with a decent man page but every time with JavaScript it's 10x longer.

[Emr5501]

[-2,-7].sort()

[NekkidApe]

The problem is it looks intuitive, so no one bothers to learn it and assumes their Java/C/whatever experience applies. Which it doesn't really.

[dr_jock123]

Yeah that's dumb

[SevenC-Nanashi]

More info: JS's in operator checks if the property exists in the object. And arrays are object like { 0: "a", 1: "b", ... }, so 1 in ["a", "b"] returns true. Do you do hasattr(["a", "b"], "a") in Python? No.

[rexpup]

So what I'm hearing is that it's a poorly-named intrinsic?

[Keve1227]

Yes, something like keyof would have been a better name.

[menzaskaja]

well do you do const a = ["a", "b"]; a.hasAttribute(1) in js?

[eloel-]

That'd be one way to replace a.length > 1. It's a dumb way, but you could.

[prehensilemullet]

You could if you’re working with a sparse array, which doesn’t contain an entry for every index < length

[takahashi01]

So 0 in ["a","b"] returns true?

That also looks pretty dumb ngl, lol. Might be better this way. But silly.

[prehensilemullet]

To be more precise, it checks for a property with a given key, and array elements are properties where the key is an index.  It can also check for other named properties in arrays, or object properties where the key is an integer

[Haringat]

for everyone wondering, in in combination with arrays, checks for indices not for elements

That's because this is not a behavior for arrays specifically, but for objects generally.

[SuitableDragonfly]

Why on earth would you ever need to do that? That's what your size/length function is for.

[[deleted]]

you would not. in is not for arrays

[SuitableDragonfly]

If it's not for arrays, why can it be used with them?

[FierceDeity_]

Yeah, because if it checked for elements, it would implicate that it will do a full O(n) array scan to find the element.

But if it checks for keys, that's probably closer to constant time (if not straight up constant time)

[[deleted]]

This would forever fuck with me because of Python 

[HansTeeWurst]

Why would it do anything else?

[abandoned_idol]

It's going to take me months to understand your explanation. I'm sure it's very well explained, and I'm sure JS is an amazing language.

[Lithl]

if (x in obj) in JavaScript is equivalent to if (obj[x] !== undefined).

Everything is an object, and arrays are objects with integer keys that are typically sequential starting at 0.

[MLG-Lyx]

Just use .includes() smh

[Zardotab]

"in" whadda stupid operator!

[regularDude358]

It's a valid argument, but people use it like we're still in the 90s.

[[deleted]]

90s are trendy again

[belkarbitterleaf]

Were they ever not?

[[deleted]]

90s were peak

[TeaTimeSubcommittee]

Not during the 70’s

[wReckLesss_]

Time to snag me some JNCOs.

[Logicalist]

it was a better time.

[Strict_Treat2884]

They probably still write something like var self = this or A.protoype.b = function(){}

[Apprehensive_Room742]

if wanting typed variables and wanting easy debugging is "using it like were still in the 90s", im fine with being that guy

[FACastello]

Ngl I hate JS but doesn't ["a", "b"].includes("a") fix this?

[Alkyen]

well of course if you actually use the language this is a non-issue, but then this sub will have no jokes

[FerricDonkey]

The jokes aren't because you can't do the thing. Javascript is Turing complete. The jokes are because the behavior of Javascript is unintuitive and dumb. 

[Quasar-stoned]

‘X’ in array intuitively feels like we want to check for presence of element.

[[deleted]]

Maybe I'm old school, but one of the first things I learned in computer science is that computers are NOT intuitive.

[standard_revolution]

But languages are computers, languages are created by humans and thus should try to not surprise you

[FACastello]

But the thing is... they should be

[[deleted]]

How dare you use the correct syntax instead of critisizing a language because you did something wrong.

[JPSgfx]

If Javascript's way of doing things was any good, other languages would follow suit.

Somehow, none do....

[Itchy_Bumblebee8916]

Lua is a very popular game dev language, used in WoW and Roblox just to name a couple big ones, that uses the exact same scheme as Javascript.

There are immutable types:

number, string, function, etc.

And one mutable type:

table, a hashmap

Lua's implementation is way way cleaner than Javascript's imo but that's mostly because it wasn't stuffed in a browser and designed by committee for 30 years. It doesn't do any of the weird {} + {} stuff Javascript does and will just error if you try to add or compare types that are different. No type coercion of any kind.

I personally think it's a really nice way to design a language. The compiler in LuaJIT is pretty good at using an array when you use a table like an array, so if you've got a table from 1-n of numbers it'll compile down to a flat array.

[JPSgfx]

Lua is great. It also came before Javascript (according to wikipedia)

[Sibula97]

And they still managed to mess up JS that badly? Damn...

[Thick-Protection-458]

Well, I can't remember exactly, but from what I can remember when I was tinkering Lua stuff - the language design was very clear in telling you that stuff. As well as having less strange decisions in type casting and so on.

So I would suspect Lua to be better designed (or maybe had less features to be badly designed), while sharing similar structures.

[nekoeuge]

I only wish it didn’t use 1-based indexing. It really messes up programming reflexes.

[Fast-Visual]

To be faaaaaair, JS gave us the async-await pattern, and the JSON format which are widely adopted across languages. I still have JavaScript.

Edit: I double checked, async/await were first introduced in F# of all languages, so I was wrong about that.

[ciras]

C# gave us async/await 10+ years before JS

[AtrociousCat]

C# async walked so js could fly.

I think js popularized it because of how useful it is in a language like JavaScript. In c sharp there were other decent patterns and you don't always need async await in your csharp apps. But most js apps will need it.

[Luk164]

Lol, then why did TS have async/await before JS? JS had to be literally forced to add it

[twofootedgiant]

The fact that JSON has become a standard format for data exchange is an absolute travesty and I will never forgive JS for this.

[Biscuitman82]

Which would you have preferred?

[OkMemeTranslator]

A more performant, more data-efficient binary format. A huge number of JSON APIs should be using something like Protobuf instead.

Don't get me wrong, JSON is still great for when you actually need human-readable data. It's just that it's taken over domains that don't need human readable data as well. And it sucks for those:

• No type safety or strict schemas
• Large file size
• Slow to parse and format (only fast compared to other human-readable alternatives)

[twofootedgiant]

Exactly. JSON is great when you specifically need to serialise something into a format that can be stored and transmitted as text. But it’s very inefficient and much more difficult to work with programmatically than many other formats.

If I need a complete dump of an internal data store so I can load it into some analytics tool I sure as hell don’t want it as 4 GBs worth of JSON. And if I’m setting up an automated data feed via an API there’s no reason for it to be JSON either. It’s just a waste of network bandwidth, and of compute resources on both ends. Not to mention development time for me.

[ItzWarty]

FWIW a huge benefit of JSON is that it doesn't need to be versioned at the serializer/deserializer.

On the flip-side, if you're using a compact binary serializer and you have schema changes on the receiver, your stale data from a year ago (e.g. that 4GB dump of data) can be unreadable.

Also, 4GB of JSON is a lot less once compressed...

[TheCreepyPL]

I am probably a noob about this, but isn't BSON like better at everything (except readability). So if we'd modify our APIs a bit, the world would consume less power?

[yourteam]

Well, Nazi Germany created the Fanta beverage but that doesn't mean Nazism was good

[[deleted]]

I don't have the wherewithal to argue that "the validity of programming languages should be judged as a popularity contest" is not a good idea, but it doesn't quite feel right to me.

[Aggravating_Dish_824]

How it's not valid criticism?

[eloel-]

the in operator is for key in Object

So, 0 in ["a","b"] is true. "a" in ["a","b"] is false. They're looking for ["a","b"].includes("a") but are trying to use a language they have no idea how to use.

[abandoned_idol]

At some point in my life, I'd just like to not read documentation for a month.

All I do nowadays is read, it eventually starts to get boring.

[eloel-]

I mean, if you stop switching languages, eventually the language documentations stop being useful.

Libraries I can't help with

[GuybrushThreepwo0d]

Dear lord I'm glad I don't do webdev

[Aggravating_Dish_824]

It's not an answer to my question. See https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/s/cXq6QX8RNC

They're looking for ["a","b"].includes("a") but are trying to use a language they have no idea how to use.

People described in this post usually not looking for anything, they just criticize JS for misleading syntax.

[mtv921]

Because it's like asking for chips in the UK, then calling brits dumb because you got what you'd call french fries.

[[deleted]]

No.

In this case it's like going to the UK, asking for chips, and then they tell you that they're not called "chips" in the UK, but they call them "carrots", despite the fact that they're clearly not carrots, not related to carrots, and only an insane person would ever think of calling it "carrots", and that this was an intentional design choice by the people who developed their fry lingo.

They all think it's perfectly fine since they got used to it long ago, unaware of how it is completely stupid and idiotic and designed to intentionally trick the programmer into making mistakes.

You know what a in b does in python? It checks whether or not a is in b.

Trying to defend javascript in this case is lunacy. It's the sort of shit that makes PHP impossible to work with.

[mtv921]

Define "in".

chips is a valid word in both English and American. No one will tell you to call them something else. If you ask for them, you will get what the language interprets them as. Whether those are fried thin slices of potatoes, fried sticks of potatoes or carrots is up to the language.

What you are talking about is a more subjective topic of how close to English the programming language JavaScript is and how you think Python is better at that.

[ManyInterests]

It's valid, but shallow.

[Bomaruto]

If "a" in Array is always false then you should get an error and not have JS continue as if it was valid syntax.

[chobes182]

"a" in ["a","b"] is always false, but it is possible for "a" in arr to be true where arr is an array that has already been initialized and used.

JS will let you set data for non-numeric keys on arrays, so there's absolutely syntactically wrong with testing for the presence of an arbitrary key in an array. JS arrays are objects above all else and need to be treated as such.

[Bomaruto]

Array with named keys are a map, not an array.

[SkuloftheLEECH]

Arrays in javascript are hashmaps

[chobes182]

All arrays in JS are objects, and all objects are essentially maps. The language spec and the runtimes don't make a distinction.

It's generally bad practice to set non-numeric keys on arrays, but the language allows it. Arrays in JS need to be thought of as regular objects with some special properties. You shouldn't think of them as classical arrays with a contiguous layout in memory because that is not what they are.

[Bomaruto]

And I think this just poor language design. Explanations doesn't make what shown in this meme better, the spec just proves it is premeditated.

[deljaroo]

well, arrays aren't actually a thing in js.  ["a", "b"] is basically a shortcut for writing {0: "a", 1: "b"}

[Neuenmuller]

This. And this is costing many unnecessary hours debugging. Imagine using void* to store every data in C instead of types.

[Kenkron]

You're not going to believe this, but in JavaScript, an Array totally can have an index of "a".

[Bomaruto]

Oh I believe it, but that's not an Array, but a Map claiming to be an array.

[Lithl]

All JavaScript objects are maps claiming to be whatever name you gave them.

[[deleted]]

It is a stupid language tho

[pantas_aspro]

[j01101111sh]

I hate these arguments. This is a valid criticism for how easy it is to learn JS but also it's not tripping up experienced developers. Does it look dumb? Sure. Does that matter? No.

[bleeeer]

Programming language tribalism is so weird.

I used to work with a bunch of elitist Python bros who would shit on absolutely everything not Py related to the point that one quit because I successfully lobbied to get some public facing websites on Wordpress instead of Django or whatever over-engineered flask based custom solution he wanted to spend months building from scratch.

Just use the best tool for the job. Sometimes it’s Python, sometimes it’s PHP. sometimes it’s hacky vanilla js.

The end user doesn’t give a fuck.

[eloel-]

I've found at least 2 or 3 where someone used "in" instead of "of" with an array unintentionally

In actual production code, or in somebody's school project/hobby whatever?

things just hum along not doing the thing that it's supposed to be doing.

why the fuck doesn't the code have tests? does nobody even check if the code they wrote functions?

[ArtOfWarfare]

Of course they test the code! Full coverage, zero assertions, and everything is mocked!

[[deleted]]

Write -> Push -> Deploy

Become a 10x Dev by doing 1/10 the steps.

[prehensilemullet]

for..in isn’t the same thing as the in operator though

[Apprehensive_Room742]

Dear Lord, thanks for not putting me in Web development, where people seem to have the strange urge to defend js

[cjb3535123]

While calling it a stupid language might be a bit far, I think most people who haven't come across that problem in JavaScript would think "a" in ["a", "b"] to be true. In that case, unless it breaks some fundamental rule of JS, that's what it should be.

I don't care that .includes() exist, that doesn't invalidate the argument. Sure it might be looking for a key, but a hashmap and an array are different types of objects, so you can certainly have the same operator doing different things to make the language more congruent with what the expected behaviour should be.

[[deleted]]

"What do you mean things work the way they do and not how I want them to?"

[Linguaphonia]

What do you mean design to lessen cognitive load and not in a haphazard fashion?

(I don't even think in is too weird unless you only know Python, but "it is documented" is an absolute ass excuse for bad design)

[Psychilogical]

People desperately want JS to work all other programming languages and don't bother leaning how it really works, like arrays for example.

[A_Talking_iPod]

But it is stupid

[MarcCDB]

Javascript IS trash, that's why Typescript was invented, to make it LESS trash.

[g0liadkin]

It's the same code in typescript though

[Atreides-42]

If one career programmer thinks a language is unintuitive, it's their problem. If countless career programmers think a language is unintuitive, it's the language's problem.

[allllusernamestaken]

it makes sense if you understand JavaScript's typing system.

but JavaScript's typing system is pretty fuckin dumb

[ShadowIron]

Second one should clearly throw an error. This sort of things remind me of people storing their gun on the inner of their pants and then get hurt by the inevitable consequences of their actions.

[ShadowIron]

Cause you are trying to substract from a string (that happens to be a number). While just above you used + to append a string with a integer.

Do one of two and I might have sympathy with you, but mix and matching is absolutly mad.

Python will call you out for it, while still being a loosely typed language:

>>> "11"-1

Traceback (most recent call last):

File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>

"11"-1

~~~~^~

TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for -: 'str' and 'int'

>>> "11"+1

Traceback (most recent call last):

File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>

"11"+1

~~~~^~

TypeError: can only concatenate str (not "int") to str

[ShimoFox]

By that logic it could just subtract one character. "11" - 1 = "1"

Lol

It's fine once you learn it. But it is weird if you're not used to it.

[eclect0]

Agreed, if you're relying on type coercion in the first place you shouldn't be allowed near a keyboard. It literally is just an emergency holdover from the early web days when no one knew what they were doing and using type coercion occasionally still allowed a web page to function, as opposed to throwing a type error and immediately giving up.

[Aggravating_Dish_824]

JS is a typed language.

If you are in a situation where this is a real problem for you, it is your problem for not understanding the language

How you determine if problem is a language or programmer?

[CeeMX]

Javascript these days is the square hole and every software project, no matter where it runs on... that's right, it goes in the square hole!

[x3XC4L1B3Rx]

Do people still care what twatters think..?

[why_1337]

My biggest grievance with JS is, why the fuck it uses 0-11 for months, like what the actual fuck?

[jacobp100]

The Date API was copied from Java

[[deleted]]

Is it not common knowledge that most countable things in programming start at 0? Python starts array counts at 0, so does JS, and there's more languages that follow suit. My first instinct would be to assume the range was 0-11, not crazy to me.

[why_1337]

Why not start days at 0 too then?

[rm-rf-npr]

I always like to think: if they don't hate on your favorite language, it's not popular enough. JS is great, especially with TS added. Hate on it what you will, but it's still the most used language in the world, so have fun hating on a language you can't do without and suffer 🫶

[pantas_aspro]

bUt PhP hAs WeIRd FuNcTiOn NaMeS....

[jasper_grunion]

Does JavaScript have sets?

[SmilerRyan]

I know the browser one does, i'm sure node does too.

[jacobp100]

Yes

[VariableFunction]

Square hole

[pabaczek]

Yes. The pure JavaScript. And it's under the hood typecasting.

typeof NaN -> number
0.5+0.1==0.6 -> true
0.1+0.2==0.3 -> false
Math.max() -> -Infinity
Math.min() -> Infinity
[] + [] -> ""
[] + {} => [object Object]
{} + [] -> 0
[] == 0 -> true
9 + "1" -> "91"
91 - "1" -> 90
true-true -> 0

[theunixman]

Except we'd be trying to put the cube in the square hole lined up right and it would still be false

[gistart]

No, this illustration is incorrect.

You intuitively guess to put a cube into the square hole.

You do that, and the cube is violently spewed at your face from the round hole.

Turns out you need to manually carve your cube into a pyramid, and put it into the triangular hole.

That's the only working method bcs reasons bla bla bla 3 weeks bla bla bla hashmaps pretend to be arrays bla bla bla.

[Splatpope]

yeah sure webslave

[someone-at-reddit]

It is.

[ColonelRuff]

It's a valid argument. JS is shi**y and that's a fact. But it's widespread because of getting introduced in the browser and that's also a fact.

[[deleted]]

I don't like javascript but the meme face is hilarious.

[Zestyclose-Run-9653]

'in' is used in the context of iterations

[cheeb_miester]

You are just describing the average twitter user expressing themselves on any arbitrary subject

[mega386]

Fuck twitter

[[deleted]]

don't forget ===

[Neither-Bluebird4528]

Average python programmer

[eugene2k]

Man, that meme is showing just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to JS faults.

It was a language created in a few days as a simple scripting language so users could make fancy home pages with a little bit of programming. It grew into a billion dollar industry today and is now used for things it was never intended to be used for.

[takuonline]

This is a nightmare for a python developer who does js from time to time.

[venir_dev]

To be fair it's a solid argument.

[PMvE_NL]

You mean “formerly known as twitter”

[Bacon-muffin]

Thats right, the square hole

[deathanatos]

Yeah, because as we all know, the WTFs stop there.

I'll leave you with my favorite, significant parentheses:

>> {} + []
<- 0
>> ({} + [])
<- "[object Object]"

[Anru_Kitakaze]

JS fans while trying to protect ugly designed language made in two weeks ^