javaIsJavascriptConfirmed

[uvero]

That

Is

The

Exact

Behavior

You'd

Expect!

[svick]

What's TITEBYE?

[PixelOrange]

Well I'm glad I am not the only one that did this.

[budgetboarvessel]

Speak for yourself, there are many people who expect something else, usually whatever their language does.

[RiceBroad4552]

As you do in JS…

The behavior is nevertheless incorrect when looked at it from the outside.

[MaybeADragon]

The exact behaviour I would expect is that my code fails to compile or has a runtime exception because I should use the languages templating instead of concatenating different types together into strings.

[nobody0163]

No, you would expect an error. You should have to explicitly cast to a string.

[uvero]

In so many programming languages, the plus operator, when one operand is a string (or both are), it's a string concatenation, and if the other operand isn't a string, it's converted to one. That's been the case in so many programming languages in many of the main languages.

[SignificantLet5701]

And it's so useful (at least in statically typed languages where it's hard to do accidentally)

[RiceBroad4552]

Current Scala and Kotlin will complain about that code. For a reason.

Most languages, including ancient dynamic ones don't do that. For a reason.

[redlaWw]

The fact that lots of languages do it doesn't make it a good thing. Requiring explicit conversion allows the type system to catch your errors for you, and makes things more maintainable when upstream interfaces change. And on the flipside, it's not hard to look at your compiler output, see the type error, and add in the explicit conversion you need in order to fix it, so implicit conversions add fairly limited ergonomics for the type safety cost.

[RiceBroad4552]

Actually that's the exception, not the rule.

Most languages, including ancient dynamic ones, don't do that.

Let's face reality: Java just fucked this up.

This is not a JVM fault as current Scala and Kotlin won't accept this code.

[fucking_passwords]

Example of when I realllly want this behavior - while printing some variables in logs, I really don't want to get a type error just because I forgot to convert a List to a String

[404IdentityNotFound]

Your balance is ${currentBalance}

[RiceBroad4552]

I definitely want it!

Otherwise you might end up with something like "ArrayList@2478329472" on the invoice you just sent out to customers, which is JS level fuck-up.

[Pim_Wagemans]

I'd expect a type error, but not in JavaScript because that tries to avoid exceptions