• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      JS is a language where [1,2,11].sort() returns [1,11,2].

      And if you use a variable instead of a bare array, half the functions are side-effectful, as determined by coin toss.

      And if you try declaring that variable with new Array(3).map() then it will ignore all 3 indices, because undefined is real enough to be enumerated, but not real enough to be iterated, because, and I cannot overstress the importance of this principle in Javascript, go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself is why.

      • PoolloverNathan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Array(3) doesn’t create [undefined, undefined, undefined, ]; it creates [/* hole */, /* hole */, /* hole */, ]. The holes don’t set any property on the array whatsoever, so they are skipped when iterating. How this makes sense, I can’t tell you.

      • Kindness@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        typeof(null) == ‘object’

        Because some people think planning an entirely new language should take less than 2 weeks. 10 days, in this case.

        See wat for more.

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The Wimp Lo doctrine is a valid theory for why JS is Like That.

          If there’s two ways to do something, JS picks all three.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      This evaluates to NaN for some reason:

      '10' % 0
      

      Since JS doesn’t really differentiate strings from numbers, except on the places it does, it makes sense to make sure you are working with numbers.

      • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Oh right that. I guess I was visualizing a scenario where you already checked for it being a number, such as a Number.isInteger(x)

        also, that suprises me a lot, you’d think this is one of the places where it treats stuff as numbers