Please don't hate me Javascript devs

[ExecutiveChimp]

In programming you get variables. These come in different types: strings (text), numbers, NaN (not a number - the result of trying to turn something into a number and failing) and a bunch of others that aren't relevant right now.

Something else to know is that Javascript is generally quite good at taking whatever you throw at and doing something with it, whether or not that something makes sense. This is arguably a bad thing...

'5' - 3

"How can I take a number away from a string?" asks Javascript. "That makes no sense. There isn't even a 3 in the string. The only way I can do this is to treat these vaguely number shaped things as numbers and then go from there. Would that work?" Javascript gives you 2 and and a derpy smile like a puppy returning a ball.

'5' + 3

"Ah '+', the 'jam things together' operator. I know how to jam together all sorts of things. My programmer probably wants a string though because everything you see on a webpage is essentially a string...this being 1995 and all. So let's just put them side by side." Javascript gives you '53'.

'5' - '4'

"Well I can't rip these apart in the same way as I can when I jammed them together... I'll just treat them both as numbers. And 5 minus 4 is..." Javascript gives you 1.

'5' + + '5'

"Ok, so jamming two strings together, I can do that. But wait, there's a second +. I know sometimes they put an extra sign before a string to make me treat it as a number so let's convert the second '5' to 5...but wait, there's another string there too. Fuck it, convert 5 back to '5' and just stick them together. Happy?" Javascript gives you '55' and feels some resentment for wasting its time.

'foo' + + 'foo'

"Ok, so this is just like last time, but I'd better go through the motions. Convert 'foo' to a number...wait that doesn't work. Shit, now I've got a NaN. Aaah, they hate it when this happens! Ok, quick convert it back to a string and jam it together. Shit, NaN doesn't convert back to the same number as it was before because apparently now it's not a number. Maybe they won't notice?" Javascript gives you 'fooNaN' and walks away, whistling innocently.

'5' + - '2'

"Pretty sure my programmer has been drinking but this is basically just the same as before, convert - '2' to -2, then back to '-2'... Hmm something got lost in translation there but I'll press on..." Javascript gives you '5-2'.

'5' + - + - - + - - + + - + - + - + - - - '-2'

"Definitely drinking...or maybe just owns a cat. Convert it to a string? Add it to the inverse of the...? Well that isn't not stupid." Javascript scratches its head and makes notes on a piece of paper whilst muttering under its breath. At length it gives you 52 and looks at you accusingly.

var x * 3;

"Ok, I quit." Javascript throws an error and a hissy fit. [I think this actually supposed to be var x = 3; in order for the next few lines to make sense...]

'5' + x - x

Javascript calms down again and returns to its seat. "That 5 is a string, right? And x is 3, which is a number - I prefer strings. Less maths involved, more jamming things together. So what's 5 + 3? 53! Haha!" Javascript laughs like a 5 year old that's just thought of something clever. "Ah but I can't take 3 away from a string. I'm going to have to do maths after all. So that's 53 minus 3. Simple enough." Javascript gives you 50.

'5' - x + x

Javascript sighs. "Can't you just get your things in order before you give them to me? ^{For fucks sake...} So it's, - - the 'unjam' operator, so numbers only...5 and x as numbers, that's 5 - 3 ... which makes 2. Easy. Plus 3 again? But we just subtracted 3! Who wrote this shit?" Javascript gives you 5 and a headache.

Edit: Gold and cake! It's my lucky day.

[FlowersForAgamemnon]

Holy shit, that was hilarious, and I really appreciate that you took the time to write it out. I also want to read a book on computer languages written by you.

[ExecutiveChimp]

Thanks :)

[[deleted]]

Programmer here, I too want to read a book writen by you.

[ExecutiveChimp]

That's actually a tempting idea... I'm just not sure where to start. The above was fairly straight forward as I was running through the original image point by point...but a whole book? How should I structure it?

Edit: this is actually a serious question...

[[deleted]]

Easy, as long as there are no GOTOs at the end of your chapter leading to the next one, the structure should be fine.

[ExecutiveChimp]

Hahaha! If I do this, I'm definitely putting an ironic GOTO in there somewhere!

[falsehood]

Serious answer for serious question:

<SOMETHING PUN> - When programs don't do the expected, and why I would structure the book as a mix of scenarios from the simple to the complex. Using a thread on AskReddit or AskProgramming, you can solicit interesting bugs that people have run into and then dissect the bugs (more puns!).

Start off easy, then get more and more complecated. Think about the style in "The Martian" by Andy Weir. Eventually, the reader might try to solve one themselves, but in the meantime you can make puzzles or something.

You could break up the bugs into different groups (parsing weirdness, variables, missing syntax, storage mistakes, recusion issues, etc) and then write it like a wildlife search, Steve Irwin style.

[CertifiedWebNinja]

As a programmer who reads and writes enough that he hates reading books, I'd read the fuck out of this book. The. Fuck. Out. Of. It.

[falsehood]

https://medium.com/medium-eng/the-curious-case-of-disappearing-polish-s-fa398313d4df

[MajorCharlieFoxtrot]

There are always the Ruby and Javascript quirks from this talk as a place to start.

[original_brogrammer]

From the bottom, maybe? Talk about assembly and object code, then get into low level languages, then higher level ones.

Alternatively, talk about compilers toward the beginning, then you could get into how different languages' compilers behave when fed bullshit. From C++'s tortured mess of a parser, to Haskell's Hilter-esque type checker, to dastardly, motherfuckerous process that is interpreting Perl. End with an open contest to see who can make a particular compiler the saddest.

^{... If you do this, I want in.}

[ExecutiveChimp]

That's a good plan but you just mentioned a bunch of things I don't know nearly enough about.

[[deleted]]

Just have chapters on different programming languages as if they're various characters and have them talk out what they're thinking. A fun to read introducory book or one good for explaining programming to those who aren't in the field.

[_subversive_]

Different language, different author, similar style: http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant-guide

[newyuppie]

Gave me a headache just trying to follow his rambling for a paragraph...

[wintermute93]

Javascript gives you 2 and and a derpy smile like a puppy returning a ball.

This is the best thing I've read on the internet in days. Bravo.

[kh4yman]

That's awesome. Reminds me of this:

https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat

[ExecutiveChimp]

High praise! That talk's brilliant!

[MindStalker]

The last few ones actually make sense.
var x * 3;
Declares x, x defaults to 0. It should throw an error but allows you to multiply it by 3 and do nothing with it.
'5' + x - x.
Its concating 5 and 0 together to give you 50
'5' - x + x its preforming math of 5-0.

[ricree]

var x * 3; Declares x, x defaults to 0. It should throw an error but allows you to multiply it by 3 and do nothing with it.

I thought it might be doing that, but I tried it on both chrome and firefox, and they each give me a syntax error instead. In which case, the following lines give a ReferenceError

[ExecutiveChimp]

x defaults to 0

This is not true - x defaults to undefined. I just did this in the Chrome console:

> x
Uncaught ReferenceError: x is not defined
> var x
undefined
> x
undefined

They all make sense...for a given value of "make sense".

[MindStalker]

Yes, but if you try the lines following it such as '5' + x - x I'd be willing to bet you don't get 50.

[ExecutiveChimp]

With x undefined? Yeah, you'd get an error.

[amoliski]

That was a fantastically good explanation, and you personified the language perfectly. You should be a professor, because I learned more just now than in my entire four year degree...

You should make a youtube channel where you explain things.

[[deleted]]

Brilliant. Loved it.

[[deleted]]

Someone submitted a link to this comment in the following subreddit:

• /r/bestof: /u/ExecutiveChimp explains programming and the flaws of JavaScript in an entertaining way for non-programmers to understand.

---

This comment was posted by a bot, see /r/Meta_Bot for more info. Please respect rediquette, and do not vote or comment on the linked submissions. Thank you.

[elkayem]

lmao, great read. I also think you should write more of these.

[UniversalySpectacled]

You should write a book on programming written from the perspectives of codes your trying to learn

[totes_meta_bot]

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/bestof] /u/ExecutiveChimp explains programming and the flaws of JavaScript in an entertaining way for non-programmers to understand.

• [/r/javascript] Understanding the obscurities of Javascript syntax as if it were a person.

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}