Nerdsniping: A glimpse into a stubborn mind

Post by maxbucknell » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 3:15 PM UTC

mncolinlee wrote: post #27

And this is why Javascript can be such an awful language. Leaving off a single equals has such a profound effect, often without a new coder even realizing it while reading the code. Imagine what happens to your code when someone tries to write a function for its side effects similar to the example seen in the blog post. Then releases it in production for it to break in six months with a feature change.

Post by sisk » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 3:37 PM UTC

mncolinlee wrote: post #27

And this is why Javascript can be such an awful language. Leaving off a single equals has such a profound effect, often without a new coder even realizing it while reading the code. Imagine what happens to your code when someone tries to write a function for its side effects similar to the example seen in the blog post. Then releases it in production for it to break in six months with a feature change.

Post by spenuke » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 3:46 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #20

romanovcode wrote: post #3

I was working with this guy - he always tried to prove that everything is possible wasting time. He ALWAYS over-complicated simple things. He was horrible to work with and everyone hated him. Not to say you are just like him etc. but this post reminded me of him because it was probably exactly what he would do.

Wasting other people's time is a negative, but deepening your understanding of a topic by examining edge cases is generally worthwhile, IMHO.

Post by gkop » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 3:49 PM UTC

antinitro wrote: post #15

var i=0; var b = {}; b.valueOf = function () { return ++i: }; if (b==1 && b==2) {//success}

  var i=0;
  var b = {};
  b.valueOf = function () {
    return ++i;
  };
  if (b==1 && b==2) { console.log("success")}

Post by mikeash » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 4:24 PM UTC

maxbucknell wrote: post #31

mncolinlee wrote: post #27

And this is why Javascript can be such an awful language. Leaving off a single equals has such a profound effect, often without a new coder even realizing it while reading the code. Imagine what happens to your code when someone tries to write a function for its side effects similar to the example seen in the blog post. Then releases it in production for it to break in six months with a feature change.

At the end of the article, it is demonstrated that this can happen even with strict equality by overriding the getters. Any language with getter/setter support can do this. Operator overloading can be used for even nefarious ends. The point is that side effects in code are dangerous, and can be used to mislead a reader. If this happens, it is not the fault of JavaScript. Anyone who writes code like that for purposes…