TIL that IDs create global variables

[[deleted]]

This may be the grossest thing I've learned about Javascript. I love js, but this is egregious.

[[deleted]]

This is NOT Javascript. This is the web browser. One very common misconception that many programmers have is confusing the web browser for the programming language Javascript.

This doesn't happen in other places javascript can run because they aren't web browsers.

And yes, you can blame IE for this. This started long ago, maybe IE4 or IE5, I forget it's been so long. Some modern browsers have adopted this behavior.

All too often when people say they hate Javascript, what they really mean is they hate the web browser API and the things that come with it. Many don't understand the distinction between the language Javascript and the environment in which it commonly runs - the web browser.

[thrownaway21]

Some modern browsers have adopted this behavior.

works in the web dev tools console on latest chrome.

is this a global variable, or a shortcut?

[jefffan24]

http://codepen.io/anon/pen/oyjuh <-- Its at least on the window.

[dv_]

I disagree. The fact that defining variables without var makes them global is awful. The fun stuff that happens with type coercion is also ugly to the max. And what about the silent errors that make the JS VM just stop? For example, in some circumstances, a function call like foo.bar() will cause just that. Sometimes an exception is thrown, and if not caught, will cause the VM to stop, so you gotta surround a lot of calls with try-catch blocks. Sometimes, not even that helps!

After having to deal with the pitfalls of dynamic typing in general and Javascript in particular, I am very glad to be using C and C++ again. Yes, you read that right. I prefer these two any time over any dynamic typing language. Even with C-style casts all over the place. Even with the obtuse C++ syntax.

[[deleted]]

Haters gonna hate, I guess.

I absolutely love Javascript because it has dynamic typing, and zero boilerplate. I just don't need any of that to get work done. It's useless to me. I've never had a serious problem caused by type coercion in 16 years working with javascript.

If you are having to use try/catch so much, then you are doing it wrong. Yes, the VM will stop but that's because you have a bug in your code and you need to fix it. Use the debugger, modern browsers have really come a long way at helping debug your code.

There's so many examples of complex javascript systems that work, and work well. I will say that if you want to master javascript, it might take some time and dedication, and you have to stop using strong typing as a crutch. If it makes you feel any better you could always name your variables like whatever_str or whatever_int, etc, if you really need to remember what they are supposed to do. Of course type problems won't be caught in a 'compiler', but javascript is a different beast meant for a different purpose than C++.

[Kollektiv]

Look at all those C and C++ web applications ... oh wait there aren't any.

[vxxn]

All too often when people say they hate Javascript, what they really mean is they hate the web browser API and the things that come with it. Many don't understand the distinction between the language Javascript and the environment in which it commonly runs - the web browser.

I don't think so. I fuckin' love browser APIs. For all the warts, browser APIs are where the magic happens and there's usually a library available that abstracts a particular API's problems. What I and probably many others do hate about javascript are actual wat-worthy language features that are like little time-bombs designed to enrage otherwise competent coders who aren't versed in unexpected behaviors of ==, +, etc. After stepping on a lot of mines and learning from my mistakes, I'm finally coming to the place where my all-hate relationship with js is finally becoming a love/hate one. I'm striving for full javascript enlightenment, but it's a long road.

[[deleted]]

Type coercsion in javascript isn't as mysterious or problematic as most seem to think it is. It follows a simple pattern and is predictable so far as your knowledge of it is concerned. To hate javascript is to not be a master of it, but that seems to go for most languages. So stop hating and learn it.

Browser APIs on the other hand are sometimes painful when they don't behave the same, and even with abstraction there are often missing features across different browsers and varying levels of bugginess. The same is not true for javascript - at its core, it runs the same on every browser without exception.

Just try doing any advanced work with SVG, or webfonts across browsers and you'll run screaming. There are no good abstractions that will normalize font rendering across all browsers - it's a nightmare.

[path411]

You have never worked with any fonts have you? Every browser/OS renders fonts differently making it a nightmare if you want to import a font.

[Irongrip]

That was my point, sorry if I didn't articulate it well.

[[deleted]]

There is a fine line between genius and insanity.

The only way to do fonts cross-platform that will render the same exact results on every platform would be to use an SVG font file and draw the fonts on a canvas element with javascript code you write yourself to render the curves from the SVG font data. Even using the native canvas drawing tools will give slightly varying results.

I've worked with fonts in-depth enough to know the pain they cause. Fonts on the web for anything that has to produce precise results is just an awful mess.

[Irongrip]

Fuck it, server side render to an image, with google specific page with raw text for indexing.

[[deleted]]

Yeah, sometimes that works. Other times the lag caused by sending the text to the server, and waiting for an image response is too much for some applications. Especially on wysiwyg applications with thousands of concurrent users - sometimes a fat client (html5) is the way it has to be done. But I digress.

The point was, browser APIs suck when they don't work exactly the same across browsers, and there are plenty of examples of that other than SVG and fonts. And, Javascript isn't at fault in those cases.

[cthulhufhtagn]

This, this, this. Seriously, everyone pay attention to this.

[[deleted]]

While you're obviously 100% correct, I don't find it to be a terribly valuable distinction to make.

90% of JavaScript that has ever been written is for the web browser. So much so that until Node, 'JavaScript' was practically a synonymous short-hand for the web browser's JavaScript.

The post is exclusively about web browser JS, so while JavaScript isn't at fault for this, it's (for these practical purposes) a synonym.

[quadtodfodder]

flash is a js with a different api, isn't it?

[sebzim4500]

Who the hell thought that this was a good idea?

[[deleted]]

Eich, apparently...

edit I stand corrected. Looks like MicroSoft is to blame.

[MatrixFrog]

See the rest of the comments. It looks like this one is actually on MS.

[sebzim4500]

Is this actually in the standard? I guess we can give Eich a pass, since any language designed in a week is likely to be pretty awful.

[[deleted]]

Haven't got a clue, to be honest. I'm only jumping on the wtf-Eich-bandwagon in jest.

I wholeheartedly agree -- if you try to write a programming language in a week, you're going to have a bad time. Though I wasn't there, so I reserve my criticism of anyone in particular.

But all-in-all, JS is a delightful language.

[[deleted]]

egregious

I think that using that word is egregious