51–60 of 80 posts
Reminds me of the J programming language
Hold up, I think I just stumbled on to a fellow alum. (Surely no other university teaches that language besides mine, right?)
(I'm learning J and other APL derivatives right now by myself by experimenting with the J docs and pinging the amazing people at the J software forums).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia has a good page on this subject. In a nutshell, "strong/weak" typing is not formally defined. Usually languages are called weakly typed when they allow a lot of implicit type coercion or just don't strictly enforce types. It's not at all unique to dynamically typed languages. C is pretty weakly typed, for example. And a static language could just as easily have a quirk like this JavaScript thing. http://en.…
While the phrases don’t seem to have strict definitions, by the Wikipedia description of Strong Typing ,there is an overlap with Static Typing: The mandatory requirement, by a language definition, of compile-time checks for type constraint violations. That is, the compiler ensures that operations only occur on operand types that are valid for the operation. However, that is also the definition of static typing, leadi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clever, but not as surprising... (null,'cool',false,NaN,4) evaluates to the last expression - 4 Array(4) creates an array with 4 elements. Array(4).toString() = ",,,"
You describe that as "not surprising"? Yikes.
I can't find a link to a page, from some time ago, in which every letter and number was obtained combining only parentheses and punctuation.
This sort of thing really bothers me with Javascript. Using the unary + operator on an array should be an error. Hiding errors by having implicit type convertions doesn't help me fix those errors. You may say that users don't need to see to see strange error messages they don't understand. Quite right, what we need instead is to have a way for browsers to transmit uncaught exceptions in JS to the server.
One of the core principles of JavaScript is to avoid errors whenever possible. Using + on arrays bothers me less than the fact that there is no error for division by zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#In_computer_ar...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You describe that as "not surprising"? Yikes.
You're surprised... why? You were expecting Python semantics? Unsurprisingly, JavaScript is its own language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You describe that as "not surprising"? Yikes.
It's surprising if you haven't used javascript before I guess.
Seems like "this is why Javascript sucks!" is a common reaction here, which I find strange on a "hacker" community. It's a fun little brainteaser, not production code. Use your head a little?