This covers most of the weirdness with primitive types, but then we have an oddly designed OO system on top of that: prototypes + `this` and constructors + classes bolted on.
JavaScript Is Weird
21–30 of 383 posts
Re: JavaScript Is Weird
#22> JavaScript is a great programming language, but ... Why are we so afraid to call trash "trash"? It's not attacking the creator, but just how can we make progress if things are not perceived as they are? https://wtfjs.com
Loved this video (4mins) of a talk by Gary Bernhardt (CodeMash 2012) on the topic of JS' quirks: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
Yep, the "wat" talk helped, got 17/25 first try since I recalled some of the weirdness.
Re: JavaScript Is Weird
#23Buggy in Firefox (89): gets stuck on the second question. Works fine in Chrome.
Works fine in Firefox on Android.
Re: JavaScript Is Weird
#24> JavaScript is a great programming language
I have no idea how you could come up with this sentence after this brilliant display of what an insanely stupid language JavaScript is.
Re: JavaScript Is Weird
#25> JavaScript is a great programming language, but ... Why are we so afraid to call trash "trash"? It's not attacking the creator, but just how can we make progress if things are not perceived as they are? https://wtfjs.com
The vast majority of these are implicit type coercion issues. Which is fairly easily banned with a linter. Once you've done that, I think JavaScript is probably the nicest of the big dynamic scripting languages (Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby) to work with.
There could definitely be improvements, but trash seems to be taking things too far.
Re: JavaScript Is Weird
#26> JavaScript is a great programming language, but ... Why are we so afraid to call trash "trash"? It's not attacking the creator, but just how can we make progress if things are not perceived as they are? https://wtfjs.com
Trash is something you are discarding. If you are keeping it because it still has some utility to you, then it is by definition not trash.
That's only one of multiple equally valid definitions.
Re: JavaScript Is Weird
#270.2 + 0.1 === 0.3 That's not really a JS problem, that's a floating point problem. Plenty of languages will have the same issue. +!![] "" - - "" (null - 0) + "0" Calling these things weird is fair enough but I can't help thinking this is code you'd never actually write outside of the context of a "Look how weird JS is!" post. It's like picking examples from the Annual Obfuscated C Contest to show how hard it is to un…
Yup, garbage in garbage out. I'm not a huge fan of JS, but this sort of criticism is absurd.
Re: JavaScript Is Weird
#28The awful letterspacing makes it very hard to know whether strings are empty or single spaces. (They’re all empty strings).
Yeah, got a couple of questions wrong due to that.
Re: JavaScript Is Weird
#29Yes Javascript is weird but at the same time you almost never face many of these issues in the real world. Bad things exist in all languages, for some maybe there isn't the same in the sense of actual quirks in the language but rather other things that limit the language in some way.
I have been a web dev for about 10 years now and I rarely if ever run into these issues. More likely, I face issues and bugs regarding state and just flaws in the logic rather than issues based on that the language wasn't designed so great.
For sure this can be worrying if you do something really important but at the same time you have a lot of other languages to choose from.
Re: JavaScript Is Weird
#300.2 + 0.1 === 0.3 That's not really a JS problem, that's a floating point problem. Plenty of languages will have the same issue. +!![] "" - - "" (null - 0) + "0" Calling these things weird is fair enough but I can't help thinking this is code you'd never actually write outside of the context of a "Look how weird JS is!" post. It's like picking examples from the Annual Obfuscated C Contest to show how hard it is to un…
Exactly. Finding flaws in a language doesn't mean the language is bad, just that it has... flaws. The proof that JS is actually pretty good is that it has been used to build so many things. Like the old adage about economics, these criticisms are taking something that works in practice and trying to see if it works in theory.