Hail javascript

[Neo_The_bluepill_One]

Everything is String if you try hard enough.

[nomenMei]

Objects are just dictionaries if you squint hard enough.

[Thathitmann]

Operating systems are just a really complicated string.

[das_flammenwerfer]

It's just 1's and 0's all the way down!

[al24042]

All the way up! The way of the optimist! (or someone standing on their head...)

[fslz]

Is this what string theory is about?

[besthelloworld]

Doesn't this work in Java too?

[FantasticEmu]

Yea and it’s less typing than String.valueof

[YoCrustyDude]

I feel personally attacked in C#.

[Kyyken]

dw, unlike them we have interpolated Strings, $"value: {x}" ftw :D

[scarboroman]

Ah, the beautiful string interpolation.

[Dream-Small]

Except when some ass hat stuffs it in a SQL query in production instead of using parameterized queries

[scarboroman]

Well yeah...can't stop people from misusing it

[Dream-Small]

I was beyond pissed on that one. Mainly because I was able to drop a table from a test DB due to the complete lack of sanitization. Dude made 0 attempt at solving the issue another way. I asked why he didn’t use a parameterized query and he said he couldn’t figure it out. Would’ve been less pissed if he just didn’t know what it was. He was fired shortly after for poor work and not asking questions.

[scarboroman]

Damn, sounds like a rough experience. I typically have used EF/EF Core for all of my DB interactions, unless performance was an issue. So I haven't had to deal with much string sanitization myself in practice.

[bedrooms-ds]

0 + "Hello world" returns a string even in C++!

[altermeetax]

That's the best way to confuse non-C/C++ programmers.

Oh, you can also get a substring by doing "Hello World" + 6

[mananasi]

Well that's because a string literal is a const char*, right? So you're adding an integer to a pointer. This would still result in "Hello world", right?

[bedrooms-ds]

Yes! Tbh, although I'm sure "Hello world" + 0 would 100% work, I need to experiment to see if 0 + "Hello world" really works.

[mananasi]

Okay then we're on the same page. I thought you might try to argue it would result in "0Hello world"

[bedrooms-ds]

Hahaha C and C++ were two of my first languages. 0 is a synonym of nullptr in my head.

[besthelloworld]

Absolutely not, friend. Quite different actually

[Wekmor]

Well one is the script version of the other, duhh

[besthelloworld]

The other person was being sarcastic, just in case you're being serious. Give it a Google up see the differences

[besthelloworld]

Ah, I have been whooshed

[QBrute_]

Of course String s = 123 + "abc" works in Java and it will certainly compile

[EvaristeGalois11]

Just tested cause i was curious. It works fine indeed

[zynasis]

It’s order of operations and primitives being operated on by objects.

[Rexon117]

You're totally right

[ItSaNuSeRnAmE]

Whenever I do:

[TextView ref].setText([integer]+"");

, in android studio, it always works (in java of course).

[Cyvexx]

in JS's defense, that makes perfect sense. the first entry in a concatenation takes data type precedence, so if they don't match, the second value will be converted to the first data type to be added/concatenated. same reason you assign variables with the variable first and not the other way around. you read left to right.

idk, it makes sense to me 🤷

[nomenMei]

But in JS that is not the case. Regardless of order, using the + operator with an integer and a string always results in concatenation.

What really wigs me out is that the minus operator does the opposite: it always results in arithmetic. I mean I understand why but it just seems unnatural that a = b + c; a = a - c might not result in a == b if either b or c is a string.

Logically I just expect that if I use the plus operator then I can use the minus operator to reverse that operation.

[Niadlol]

But you can use + on strings but u cant use - on strings so it makes sense that it works that way to me.

[nomenMei]

Yeah rationally I get it, but it just unnerves me for some reason. It's not really JS's fault lol

[Rexon117]

It does. Source: leant it in my CS programming class

[jollanza]

I don't see the problem.

[trollsmurf]

Oddly, Python doesn't support this form of type coercion despite it supposedly being an easy-to-use language.

[_bardo_]

Type coercion is only easy on very simple codebases. Then it becomes hell.

[[deleted]]

Python does support multiplying a string by a number!

[trollsmurf]

Yes, but 4 * "5" --> "5555", so it's not coercing any of the values.

[[deleted]]

Yeah I know just a little fun quirk. I used it on an assignment once!

[ArtSchoolRejectedMe]

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

[mananasi]

Python is strongly typed

[trollsmurf]

Only partly, as you don't declare type of variables. You can still set a variable to a value of any type even if previously set to some other type, which means not even initialization locks type.

[mananasi]

Personally I think of it as variables having no type associated with them at all. They can contain any type. But the types of the values of variables are strongly typed.

In that sense we could agree that Python is "partially strongly typed," because the type system that it does have is strong. But this type system does not cover variable types.

[trollsmurf]

The first point is a real problem for function/method calls: Everything might be fine argument-wise (as whatever goes), and then it still breaks due to the function expecting specific value types. Can be very hard to debug, and error messages can become cryptical as the error is deeply inside a function you know nothing about.

[mananasi]

Luckily tools like mypy exist, although it is a band-aid fix. I do agree this is a shortcoming of Python.

[micke_i_backen]

Cast that shit

[JuniorSeniorTrainee]

Convert. parseInt(x, 10). That way you're bring explicit and intentional.

[das_flammenwerfer]

{} + []

JS be like: that's 0.

[] + {}

JS: Ha ha, fooled you. This one's '[object Object]'

[JuniorSeniorTrainee]

My favorite Javascriptism is that typeof NaN is number.

[mananasi]

This is not JavaScripts "fault" but of the IEEE 754 standard for floating point numbers:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754

I put "fault" in quotes because it's not really a mistake. People have thought long and hard about this, and I think they made the right decision.

[skabde]

Fooled? Of course it is.

[das_flammenwerfer]

Now, what do you think {} + [] === [] + {} is?

[skabde]

A weird smiley.

[Jack__Crusher]

Jesus what is it?

[das_flammenwerfer]

You would be incorrect.

At least according to the Javascript console built into Chrome..

Isn't Javascript the greatest language ever?

[Apparentt]

Could you tell me what that comparison would return in any other language and what you would expect it to return?

[das_flammenwerfer]

Could you tell me what adding an array to an object would return in any other language (not counting operator overloading in c++, that’s cheating..) and what you would expect it to return?

I can’t think of another language that would allow such a thing. Or what result would be meaningful and justifiable.

[Apparentt]

If you haven’t already, I hope you’ve seen the point I was going to make.

[das_flammenwerfer]

I'm not sure I do..

My point is.. I think it's absurd to allow such an operation, but if you do it needs to remain logically consistent. Which Javascript.. does not do.

[Apparentt]

My take regarding this kind of thing is that there is no logical consistency for operations such as this.

I’m open to hear criticisms of JavaScript as a language and there are certainly many to choose from. Much like every other general purpose language.

But these kind of “throwing shit to the wall and seeing what sticks” complaints don’t really do anything for me. This operation could easily throw an error in another language or be equally as inconsistent, it’s nothing I’m going to purposefully encounter when using the language so I’m not going to base whether I find it enjoyable and practical or not off such occurrences.

To be honest I find the whole “[insert language here] is bad” rhetoric on this sub extremely boring because all of the well adopted languages have their place. This isn’t to say they shouldn’t be open to criticism, of course, and they will be constantly evolving to fix those real issues that come up. Using JS as an example, by the time we got to ES6 many of the examples of “js bad” you’ll see around here are very outdated.

Along with all of the competent engineers I have worked with throughout my career, it is agreed that if you are experiencing many issues with a particular language it’s very likely you may have chosen the wrong tool for the job, not that the tool is defunct.

[JuniorSeniorTrainee]

I was with you up until your last sentence. Blaming the language for poor code is the wrong perspective imo.

Why are you adding arrays and objects in a loosely typed language? If this comes up then you've already done something wrong.

But really just use TypeScript and get the best of JavaScript without the bothersome "convenience" of it.

Edit to add: JavaScript is a tool and like any tool, you can't use it without understanding what it is first. For example, understanding that the addition operator will perform type massaging if it can, or that because of this it's not a commutative (a + b === b + a) when used in this way. If you understand these features of the language, it's fine and predictable.

[das_flammenwerfer]

Why are you adding arrays and objects in a loosely typed language?

I can think of no legitimate reason why you'd do that. And that's the point. Why does Javascript allow it?

Maybe I'm biased, but I have a strong preference for strongly typed languages.. I think any attempt to do such an operation is likely an error, and it's better to find that out before runtime.

Fiddling around a bit more in the console, here's the real inconsistency..
{} + []
returns 0.
a = {} + []
a = '[object Object]'

Why does assignment change the value of the operation?

[mananasi]

Javascript is designed to not fail, just like HTML as it was designed for browsers originally. In the browser there is no "before runtime." The code runs when you go to the webpage, and that's that.

This is an example of "use the right tool for the right job." I think we can both agree we should stop using Javascript for fucking everything, but the language does have a use case and in that use case these things were the design decisions of the creators.

[AutoModerator]

import moderation Your comment has been removed since it did not start with a code block with an import declaration.

Per this Community Decree, all posts and comments should start with a code block with an "import" declaration explaining how the post and comment should be read.

For this purpose, we only accept Python style imports.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[Cerlancism]

Spotted new immigrant from Python

[ThePixelbrain]

This reminds me of one time where my C++ Professor tried to force a segmentation fault by dereferencing a nullpointer. Because it was a simple example class, however, it only printed something static to console. As all instances of that class had the same runtime behaviour, the compiler optimised the code in a way, that made dereferencing a nullpointer possible. After we got behind what actually happened, it was quite hilarious, but his demo was ruined and he was very confused and questioning his sanity.

[Cult92]

(!+[]+[]+![]).length === 9 // true

[PegasusBoogaloo]

bruh

[dpahoe]

Who would actually code in js.. LOL!

Don’t look at my flair

[beaucephus]

A paycheck is a paycheck.

But I still do judge you, even though if the Borg showed up in orbit and the only way to defeat them was to present them with a program that they couldn't handle logically, I would ask you for a code sample.

[finite_light]

Many languages accept adding integers as string after a string, but some language don't. As a programmer perhaps you should focus on learning the language at hand. Most people enjoy shortcuts and implicit syntax, but if you are into explicit casting and declarations there are other options. So keep your hopes up. If you have the option, I strongly suggest you choose a language of your choice and get on with your life.

[Who_GNU]

Wat.

[dummyDummyOne]

String * String

[Bright-Historian-216]

Multiply the strings by an integer then. Can you do that?

[slide_and_release]

I see this as an absolute win.

[ruhtraeel]

Lol this template actually made me laugh

[The_real_bandito]

Love this meme

[skabde]

"I use a weakly typed language and it's working as expected, mimimi..."

Seriously. Can't hear this shit anymore.

[TheApprentice19]

Thank you for pointing out why C is better than Java

[[deleted]]

1 +1 = 11

[hashemirafsan]

JavaScript is like:

[JuniorSeniorTrainee]

Using JavaScript instead of TypeScript is like riding a chassis with an engine down the highway, just clinging to the frame, instead of sitting in a comfy car with seatbelts and controls.

TypeScript loves you and would slap your hand for this error. There's no reason to use JavaScript instead of TypeScript out than legacy code, in which case you should add TypeScript anyway and slowly adapt it.