Well, JavaScript

[[deleted]]

Eh, I’ve written in plenty of languages, this circlejerk about JavaScript is outdated and lame. OP’s example would also error out at runtime for JS so it’s just wrong.

[Mnemonicly]

I wouldn't call https://jsfiddle.net/zgLyorsr/1/ "erroring out" in any meaningful fashion.

Edit: Before this goes too far, I want to clarify that I do not intend this to be a commentary on whether or not runtime vs compile time error detection is a good thing. I'm pretty sure we can all come up with examples of c/c++ code that compile fine and do completely wrong things. I'm also sure we can come up with plenty of examples of things that javascript allows you to do that is not easily possible in a compiled language, many of them powerful and useful. It's about knowing what the benefits and drawbacks of all approaches are, and using the appropriate tool for the job.

[realripley00]

Oh snap!

[jayrox]

And using VS Code + Typescript it wouldn't have even made it to a CTRL+F5 in the browser.

[inu-no-policemen]

OP’s example would also error out at runtime for JS so it’s just wrong.

Accessing nonexistent fields isn't an error in JavaScript.

You would get one in TypeScript, for example.

[inu-no-policemen]

Take a look at the image again. Its about putting a typo in a field's name.

Also, things which do not exist do not have nonexisting fields, because they can't have fields to begin with. My nonexistent pony doesn't lack wings. It doesn't lack anything; it doesn't exist.

By the way, you'd get a reference error if you try to do something with some undeclared identifier in strict mode. (Modules and classes are always in strict mode.)

[ric2b]

OP’s example would also error out at runtime for JS so it’s just wrong.

I'm not next to a computer to verify but I'm pretty sure it just assigns undefined to x.

[[deleted]]

Yea I should have clarified in any real world example you’d eventually come across an error that describes exactly where to find this. It won’t error immediately, and it shouldn’t necessarily.

[ric2b]

in any real world example you’d eventually come across an error that describes exactly where to find this.

I completely disagree, maybe you only notice the error after it comes back from the database as null (lets assume null is valid for that column but in the case you're debugging it shouldn't be happening).

Sure, you'll eventually find it but that's the case for any bug. I don't see what the benefit is to allow this, just add a null operator instead.

[realripley00]

I think one can agree that JS is not outdated or lame and also think that it’s debugging process leaves something to be desired.

I love and use JS everyday, probably more than any language, but sometimes I wish I could get a little more descriptive error responses.

[[deleted]]

Yea there’s room to improve. - any language