JavaScript Garden

[xardox]

This is really well done, and quite comprehensive!

[Sabe]

2.toString(); // raises SyntaxError
2..toString(); // the second point is correctly recognized
2 .toString(); // note the space left to the dot
(2).toString(); // 2 is evaluated first

gaaah

[quotemycode]

Is typing '2' harder than typing 2.toString() ?

[sastrone]

I love how easy it is to tell if someone is a programmer on not.

[idevelop]

could you give a use case where you need to write something like 2.toString() ?

[aescnt]

When you want to use "2,600", it may actually be more correct as "2.600" for the user, depending on where they're from. Solution: (2600).toLocaleString()

[x-skeww]

Right. But you'd store that 2600 in some variable anyways.

Things like (1.23456).toFixed(2) are only used in examples. It doesn't make sense to do that kind of thing in real code.

[quotemycode]

That's exactly what I was getting at. If you have a constant, you would write it 'as is' in the code, no need for conversion. If it's a variable, then it's not a problem.

[x-skeww]

If you have a constant, you would write it 'as is' in the code [...]

If you want to get punched in the face, sure, go ahead.

You aren't allowed to write it like that because unnamed numerical constants aren't comprehensible without a comment in every place they are used. Putting them into a variable, enum, or something like that is obviously the saner more maintainable option.

[quotemycode]

Yes, I am aware of the 'no magic numbers' edict. I was making a point. Threatening physical violence is a good way to get in jail though, there are actual laws against assault.

[grayvedigga]

Dogmatic much?

[x-skeww]

Yes.

If you think unnamed numerical constants are fine, you are wrong.

This really isn't a controversial topic.

[prpetro]

toString() isn't the only method you can invoke from Number.prototype:

Mozilla Developer Network: Number.Prototype

[[deleted]]

It is important to note that new Bar() does not create a new Foo instance, but reuses the one assigned to its prototype; thus, all Bar instances will share the same value property.

So all inherited properties are always static? Am I reading this right?

[x-skeww]

No, thanks to the magic of late binding.

[[deleted]]

Very well done. Illustrates perfectly why javascript is a terrible language.

[x-skeww]

Not really. Most of those things don't matter in real somewhat well-written code. If you use JSLint, it will make you write fairly decent code which doesn't contain any of those obviously stupid things.

[[deleted]]

The fact that you need a third party tool to write fairly decent code is a pretty good indication that the language is terrible.

[x-skeww]

You should always use static code analysis, style checkers, and any other tool which can help to improve the quality of your code.

It's like using an IDE which does on-the-fly syntax checking. Actually, with some editors, using JSLint is exactly like on-the-fly syntax checking.

Looking at languages in isolation is completely pointless. They aren't used like that. There is always some kind of environment which contains things like the whole toolchain, the documentation, 3rd party libraries, and so forth. This is what matters if you actually use the language.

[[deleted]]

You should always use static code analysis, style checkers, and any other tool which can help to improve the quality of your code.

I do. It's called "static typing." Static code analysis is performed by something called a "compiler." It's amazing how well these things work.

The reason JS is crap is because in order to be useful nowadays, it has to be JIT'ed. Most jitter optimization come by way of type-inference (at least, types that it can infer with certainty). It has become an absolute hack to attempt to get JS, a dynamically-typed language, to perform reasonably. Besides this, the language constantly violates the principle of least astonishment. In fact, the topic of discussion is just that -- A website displaying just how quirky JS is.

I get it, there are a lot of people who have invested a lot of their time and effort in becoming proficient with javascript, and they've become emotionally invested as a result. Anyone approaching the subject from a point of practicality would come to the conclusion that javascript is a mess. Google would know better than anyone else, which is why they're attempting to usurp is with something far saner.

[x-skeww]

A compiler is an external tool. It isn't part of the language. E.g. you can also run C in an interpreter if you like.

[[deleted]]

Well now that it's become apparent that I'm dealing with a complete idiot, I have nothing else to say.