11–20 of 115 posts
Very nice to see it starts off with a (correct) discussion of JS types! JS devs mostly don't know the actual types in JS, which is pretty crazy if you think about it.
I think 99% of the problems people have with Javascript are not actually types, but `this`. It's the most confusing part about Javascript. This context, var foo scope, what? Why is this value not updating? undefined? What???
var that = this; + "42"; // 42
Being a bit pedantic here, why not recommending the Number function which may be less obscure for beginners?
Number("42"); // 42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think 99% of the problems people have with Javascript are not actually types, but `this`. It's the most confusing part about Javascript. This context, var foo scope, what? Why is this value not updating? undefined? What???
Especially when you need to do something like: var that = this;
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apart from they wouldn't really be "news", which is supposedly what this site is for (as denoted by the site's name and URL).
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Very nice to see it starts off with a (correct) discussion of JS types! JS devs mostly don't know the actual types in JS, which is pretty crazy if you think about it.
I think 99% of the problems people have with Javascript are not actually types, but `this`. It's the most confusing part about Javascript. This context, var foo scope, what? Why is this value not updating? undefined? What???
And I don't just mean run-of-the-mill blub programmers who dabble in jQuery, I mean some of the best devs I've ever seen in any language. I had a self-proclaimed JS expert tell me that JS has integers and floats as distinct types. Even the people I work with every day who are fantastic did not know that function and array are not types.
Of course, things like `typeof` don't help the situation, so I don't put the blame squarely on programmers' shoulders. And obviously you can get a lot done without knowing that, technically, functions are just objects that can be called. But it still strikes me as kinda crazy.
> You can also use the unary + operator to convert values to numbers: + "42"; // 42 > [...] However the "+" operator simply converts the string to NaN if there is any invalid character in it. Being a bit pedantic here, why not recommending the Number function which may be less obscure for beginners? Number("42"); // 42
An other thing that could maybe be covered is this specifity:
typeof "42" === "string"
typeof String(42) === "string"
typeof new String(42) === "object"
> You can also use the unary + operator to convert values to numbers: + "42"; // 42 > [...] However the "+" operator simply converts the string to NaN if there is any invalid character in it. Being a bit pedantic here, why not recommending the Number function which may be less obscure for beginners? Number("42"); // 42
I just wanted to say that the behaviour of this 'nicer' idiom may not be what's expected - it stops iterating once it hits the first falsy value. I was quite excited actually when I first saw them idiom, until I quickly realized its limitations
"While often derided as a toy" Javascript is not a toy; toys are fun.
> You can also use the unary + operator to convert values to numbers: + "42"; // 42 > [...] However the "+" operator simply converts the string to NaN if there is any invalid character in it. Being a bit pedantic here, why not recommending the Number function which may be less obscure for beginners? Number("42"); // 42