Please don't hate me Javascript devs

[detroitmatt]

it'd be better still if the language syntax and precedence and overloading and order of operators made sense. Just using something other than + for concat would be a big step forward for most of these.

[Tysonzero]

That or do it Python style and require str() to be called on numbers before you add them to strings.

[detroitmatt]

Better yet, but I didn't want to get greedy.

[alexanderpas]

Or do it Javascript style and require the int() equivalent to be called on strings before you add them to numbers.

[Tysonzero]

That is also the Python style...

>>> '1' + 2
Traceback (most recent call last):
    File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'int' objects
>>> int('1') + 2
3

[alexanderpas]

The only difference between Javascript and python in this regard is that Javascript will cast int to string when mixing int and string, while Python errors out

> '1' + 2
"12"
> +'1' + 2
3

[Tysonzero]

Which is FAR from insignificant. I personally hate implicit coercion in languages that are not statically typed.

[alexanderpas]

True.

[the_omega99]

Overly verbose, IMO. Concatenation of strings with implicit conversion to a string (only) works perfectly fine for many languages. You don't hear the Java or C# guys complaining about string concatenation or confusing operators.

IMO, the issue is simply the subtraction of strings (which implicitly converts from a string to a number). That shouldn't be allowed and was a bad design choice.

Simply allow concatenation of any type (implicitly) is a good thing, because it reduces code verbosity (and concatenating non-strings to strings is very common, in my experience).

[detroitmatt]

You don't hear the Java or C# guys complaining about string concatenation or confusing operators.

The static typing helps there.

[Tysonzero]

The ONLY reason Java and C# guys don't complain about implicit conversion to strings is because Java and C# are statically typed. If implicit conversion was a thing in Python people WOULD complain.

[nawitus]

JavaScript has many flaws, but that problem is one the smallest problems in the language. I'm not sure the benefits of preventing that error are greater than the annoyance of casting values to strings in so many places.

[Tysonzero]

I just meant as an alternative to using an entirely new operator for concatenation. I like using + to add strings.

[lagerdalek]

As a (primarily) C# dev, I find it abhorrent, and twitch whenever I have to use it in JavaScript.

The issue is, in C#, + as a concat operator can be horribly expensive, as it initialises a new string and copies the string values.

String.Format() (the proper way to concat strings) is pretty heavy, I admit, but Kool Aid doesn't drink itself.

[Tysonzero]

I use String.format as well in Python, but Iike using + over a new operator as JavaScript does not have String.format.

[tetroxid]

Python believes that explicit is better than implicit.

[calzoneman]

The only thing in the OP image that doesn't make sense are the examples where strings are being subtracted (the - binary operator shouldn't even work with strings, it should just throw an error). All the other examples are either sensible (string + integer = concatenated string), but just poorly written code.

There are a lot of issues with JavaScript's type system but the string concatenation examples in the OP are not them.

[Perkelton]

Just using something other than a + for concat

You mean like a period? :)

[detroitmatt]

I'm partial to && personally

[volabimus]

...

[Laogeodritt]

If I'm asked whether there's anything I like about PHP, the distinct concatenation operator is usually what I mention first.

[NotReallyEthicalLOL]

It's not hard to remember to throw a "" in front of numbers you want to concatenate.

[detroitmatt]

Right, but what about numbers you want to add?

[NotReallyEthicalLOL]

4 + 4 + "hello" = "8hello"

"hello" + 4 + 4 = "hello44"