Wat

#1

Post by abahgat » Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 8:32 PM UTC

Wat
destroyallsoftware.com

Re: Wat

#2

Post by chetan51 » Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 10:59 PM UTC

WAT

Re: Wat

#3

Post by angli » Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 11:01 PM UTC

This is incredibly funny, but does anyone know why the interpreter makes such bizarre decisions? Why wouldn't it be preferable to just throw up errors?

Re: Wat

#4

Post by Tashtego » Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 11:02 PM UTC

angli wrote: post #3

This is incredibly funny, but does anyone know why the interpreter makes such bizarre decisions? Why wouldn't it be preferable to just throw up errors?

Welcome to the world of JavaScript. This response is NaN.

Re: Wat

#5

Post by Karunamon » Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 11:06 PM UTC

chetan51 wrote: post #2

WAT

Wat.

Re: Wat

#6

Post by qqqqqq » Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 11:09 PM UTC

Hilarious! This reminds me of a StackOverflow question which asked the users for the weirdest language quirks they could think of. I laughed pretty hard at that too.

Re: Wat

#7

Post by franciscoapinto » Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 11:09 PM UTC

This is a repost, but whatever. Hopefully people who haven't seen it before will enjoy it.

Re: Wat

#8

Post by libraryatnight » Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 11:10 PM UTC

Even with my limited programming knowledge I laughed a lot through this.

Re: Wat

#9

Post by ajross » Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 11:18 PM UTC

angli wrote: post #3

This is incredibly funny, but does anyone know why the interpreter makes such bizarre decisions? Why wouldn't it be preferable to just throw up errors?

Javascript was a rush job. And the ECMA spec was needed early due to industry pressure. So where perl and (to a lesser extent) python were able to just bury their early goofs in a pile of incompatible versions bumps, Javascript had its encased in the proverbial carbonite of an international standard. Which is sad, really, because in a lot of other ways it's the cleanest scripting language of its generation.

Re: Wat

#10

Post by getsat » Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 11:19 PM UTC

angli wrote: post #3

This is incredibly funny, but does anyone know why the interpreter makes such bizarre decisions? Why wouldn't it be preferable to just throw up errors?

For more sadness, see: http://wtfjs.com

Fun fact: the creator of Javascript posts on HN. Maybe he'll answer your question.