Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of those videos where they do things like {} + [], but why would anyone care what JS does in that case? Unless you’re a shit-ass programmer, you’re never going to be running code like that.
The idea behind that kind of type conversion was that JS was originally designed to be extremely lenient. If it ever crashed, the web page would freeze, so it lets you do things other languages just crash from, like divide by zero.
Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of those videos where they do things like {} + [], but why would anyone care what JS does in that case? Unless you’re a shit-ass programmer, you’re never going to be running code like that.
By this same logic, memory safety issues in C/C++ aren’t a problem either, right? Just don’t corrupt memory or dereference null pointers. Only “a shit-ass programmer” would write code that does something like that.
Real code has complexity. Variables are written to and read from all sorts of places and if you have to audit several functions deep to make sure that every variable won’t be set to some special value like that, then that’s a liability of the language that you will always have to work around carefully.
A language’s deficiencies are rarely obvious when everyone is writing it perfectly.
But a coherent type system gives the programmer confidence - for free. Do you know what [1] + [2] is in JavaScript? Do you know what type it is? JavaScript teaches you that it has operator overloading for built-in types but then it behaves in such a dumb way you can’t use it.
That’s explained by a desire to be extremely lenient, but it’s not justified by it. Programming langauges are generally not made by idiots, so every bad decision has an explanation.
I would assume [1] + [2] would give you either 0 or 2, but maybe "12". But why you ever write that? I’ve never bothered to memorize what happens there because I would never write that. The plus operator is not for arrays. It’s for numbers and strings. If you’re trying to concatenate arrays, there’s a function for that. Would you do that in Java or C? People trying to make JavaScript do silly things just because it refuses to crash when you do then calling the language bad for it is just silly to me.
Just look up the video entitled “wat” which is mainly about JavaScript
Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of those videos where they do things like
{} + [], but why would anyone care what JS does in that case? Unless you’re a shit-ass programmer, you’re never going to be running code like that.The idea behind that kind of type conversion was that JS was originally designed to be extremely lenient. If it ever crashed, the web page would freeze, so it lets you do things other languages just crash from, like divide by zero.
By this same logic, memory safety issues in C/C++ aren’t a problem either, right? Just don’t corrupt memory or dereference null pointers. Only “a shit-ass programmer” would write code that does something like that.
Real code has complexity. Variables are written to and read from all sorts of places and if you have to audit several functions deep to make sure that every variable won’t be set to some special value like that, then that’s a liability of the language that you will always have to work around carefully.
A language’s deficiencies are rarely obvious when everyone is writing it perfectly.
But a coherent type system gives the programmer confidence - for free. Do you know what
[1] + [2]is in JavaScript? Do you know what type it is? JavaScript teaches you that it has operator overloading for built-in types but then it behaves in such a dumb way you can’t use it.That’s explained by a desire to be extremely lenient, but it’s not justified by it. Programming langauges are generally not made by idiots, so every bad decision has an explanation.
I would assume
[1] + [2]would give you either0or2, but maybe"12". But why you ever write that? I’ve never bothered to memorize what happens there because I would never write that. The plus operator is not for arrays. It’s for numbers and strings. If you’re trying to concatenate arrays, there’s a function for that. Would you do that in Java or C? People trying to make JavaScript do silly things just because it refuses to crash when you do then calling the language bad for it is just silly to me.