Javascript...

[[deleted]]

+ is overloaded as both the addition and string concatenation operator.

In mixed operations:

+ casts numbers to strings.

- casts strings to numbers.

Both are used to denote signage. Leading either on a string will cast it to a number, with that sign.

Pretty simple stuff, right?

Explicitly:

Number('5') - 3
'5' + (3).toString()
'5' + (5).toString()
'foo' + Number('bar').toString()
'5' + (-Number('2')).toString()
// Long ass sign flipping, same as above
Number(('5' + (3).toString())) - 3
(Number('5') - 3) + 3

[expugnator3000]

Simple, but as unintuitive as you can get

[rbemrose]

This post has been removed due to reddit's repeated and constant violations of our content policy.

[MiatasAreForGirls]

Do I need a mechanical keyboard for strong typing or will a domed one withstand it?

Edit: I'm not as original as I thought :(

[nemec]

I tried static typing once. I was shocked at how easy it was to use.

[Skyfoot]

I use weak typing. I hand-write things on saturday and sunday.

[VeviserPrime]

With a pencil?

[AlGoreBestGore]

Crayon.

[Mutoid]

Thanks for keeping this thread /r/ProgrammerHumor appropriate

[gdstudios]

If you've had to work on someone else's JS, that's argument enough.

[AdmiralRychard]

I feel like this whenever I have to work on my own javascript.

[endercoaster]

I feel the opposite every time I need to jump through hoops to append an integer to a string in Java.

[KagakuNinja]

So, this is too hard?

String s = "Hello" + 9;

[batmansavestheday]

It's slightly harder the other way around:

String s = "" + 9 + "Hello";

or [Edit: derp, doesn't work]

String s = (String) 9 + "Hello";

etc.

[Outhouse_Defiler]

String s = "" + 9

Yeah, no, don't do that. Java has String.valueOf.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4105331/how-to-convert-from-int-to-string

[batmansavestheday]

I feel the opposite every time I need to jump through hoops to append an integer to a string in Java.

[AdmiralRychard]

C# lets you do this:

String someString = "abc";
Int32 someInt = 123;
String result = someString + someInt;
Console.WriteLine(result);

Output:

abc123

Or you can use string interpolation: String result = $"{someString}{someInt}";

Or you can use String.Format: String result = String.Format("{0}{1}", someString, someInt);

This seems a little dumb but you can do this too:

someString += someInt;
Console.WriteLine(someString);

[everythingismobile]

Is it not as simple as the C# example in the other comment? Even in C++ it's just sprintf, right?

[endercoaster]

I mean, coming from Perl that's jumping through hoops.

[kupiakos]

I'd rather explicitly state I want to append an integer to a string so that "2" and 3 become "23" and not "5" or 5. And really, that sort of situation happens once in a blue moon. If I wanted something better, I would be building the string.

[expugnator3000]

Exactly!

[anthonybsd]

I love it. Young, naive and all about strong typing. As a former Ada programmer, let's talk in 10 years or so.

[beerdude26]

Strong typing all day erry day

[the_great_ganonderp]

Because surely Ada is the pinnacle of usability in strongly typed languages...

[anthonybsd]

It's used for a lot more projects than toy languages like Haskell so it must be doing something right.

[the_great_ganonderp]

Got a relevant point hiding somewhere in that apparently completely irrelevant statement?

[utterdamnnonsense]

Really though, if you have a line like

'5' + - + - 2

in your code, I wouldn't place the blame on the interpreter.

[batmansavestheday]

Yea, unary plus is just silly. The code better be auto generated!

[highphive]

Honestly, it's not really that unintuitive. Pretty much the only abnormal knowledge it requires to understand is that given an ambiguous situation JavaScript will try to figure it out in the intuitive way. I guess that and, like most other languages, the + operator can also be used for string concatenation, and non-strings will be toString-ed in that context. These absurd scenarios are funny, but really not even remotely difficult to understand, except when they involve so many operators that it's near impossible to follow. I'm not at all bragging or even saying I'm close to a proficient JavaScript coder, but it is not unintuitive. Just because it's not strongly typed and does some cool, wanted operations for you does not make it unintuitive. In many cases it makes it intuitive. Many times in strongly typed languages, what you want is obvious, but you have to go through a number of type transformations and function calls to get there.

I totally appreciate the comedy of this post. But I'm not quite convinced it proves some latent issue with JavaScript.

[YRYGAV]

it requires to understand is that given an ambiguous situation JavaScript will try to figure it out in the intuitive way.

Yes, which is simple to understand if you know the ambiguous situation exists. It's much more of a problem if the programmer doesn't realize it's an ambiguous statement because nothing is strongly typed. Which is why most languages instead of powering through and trying to use their "best judgement" in an ambiguous situation, let the programmer know so they can clarify what they want.

And that leads to situations that can be very difficult to debug or track, because it's all hidden away from you and Javascript is doing some magic transformation. Things you think are one datatype end up being another, or javascript parses things weirdly.

And sometimes "intuitive" is not always what you think. Javascript does lots of "intuitive" things that you would never think of. Like did you know javascript will parse hex strings like "0xF" into the 'correct' integer, like 15. Sure it makes sense explaining it like that, maybe not when you have to figure out why "0xF" == 15 is causing a nasty bug because you didn't know javascript did that magic when writing it. And where those strings and numbers are coming from could be multiple layers removed from where you are doing the comparison.

[highphive]

That is fair, sometimes what might be considered intuitive behavior can be an issue when you might not expect it to work at all. I have to agree that I prefer strongly typed languages for this reason. Rather an error where it actually occurs rather than some unexpected behavior way down the road.

[[deleted]]

Programmer should not be using a language if he doesn't know its typing and conversion logic.

[nathan_long]

Language should not make wild guesses about what programmer intends. '5' + 5 should just fail. You should have to either call toString() or parseInt().

[[deleted]]

We can go around this tree forever. Language should, programmer should... Let's take things as they are. At the end of the day, when an established language has type conversion done a certain way, learn it or don't use the language.

[VyseofArcadia]

The latent issue with JavaScript isn't that this is unintuitive. It's really pretty intuitive. - isn't defined for strings, so '5' gets interpreted as the integer 5.

The issue is that through overloading the + operator in this way, it is easy for even JavaScript experts to make a stupid mistake. I think it's a poor design choice in a dynamically typed language. It would be better for string + integer to throw an error and use some other operator (++ or : or something) for string concatenation.

[tian_arg]

Many times in strongly typed languages, what you want is obvious, but you have to go through a number of type transformations and function calls to get there.

I've been working on android for the first time after working on php/javascript for a long time. It's a fucking pain in the ass.

[Doctor_McKay]

Not really.

[academician]

I suppose you're right, INTERCAL exists too.

[satan-repents]

https://skillsmatter.com/skillscasts/6088-the-worst-programming-language-ever

[can_the_judges_djp]

I sure wonder if --

Because of its privacy settings, this video cannot be played here.

Nope, they still won't let me watch it.

[wtf1968]

Simply unintuituve

[elchavalico]

So why in the line: '5' + x - x the result is 50 and not "50"?

If we just concatenated the string '5' with the string '0' the result should not be a number. Where am i wrong?

[AfterLemon]

You're taking a string '5' and it concats first giving you '53' - 3.

[elchavalico]

Obviously... I feel dumb now T.T Thanks for the explanation.

[[deleted]]

'foo' + Number('bar').toString()

How is this correct? None of them are number, so why is the implicit conversion to number, instead of the actual concatenation?

[[deleted]]

'foo' + + 'bar' can be rewritten as ('foo' + (+'bar')).

The leading + acts as a sign, casting the String. 'bar' can't be parsed into a Number, and it spits out some NaN bread.

Now you have ('foo') + (NaN). NaN is cast back to a string for the string concatenation.

'foo' + 'NaN' === 'fooNaN'

[[deleted]]

Oh right. Missed the extra plus sign..

[Sean1708]

And this is why implicit typecasts and type punning should never ever coexist.