473
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 73 points 7 months ago

better to go that way than this (note the weekly downloads)

[-] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 12 points 7 months ago

300,000 every week... is this really a feature not built into Java Script?

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 32 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

is this really a feature not built into Java Script?

x % 2 == 0

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago
(+x) % 2 == 0

If you forget for a second it's Javascript, the language will turn back and bite you.

[-] Kindness@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago

(+x) % 2 === 0

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 5 points 7 months ago

I am not good friends with js, what did I miss?

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 14 points 7 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 5 points 7 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.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

Yet the array contains exactly three nothings.

It's like a zen koan.

[-] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

Time is a flat circle

[-] Kindness@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 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.

[-] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

We wrote it wrong on purpose, as a joke.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 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 7 points 7 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 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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

Not a JS dev either but ===.

Not really sure what the (+x) is about

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 points 7 months ago

the remainder operator should return a number or a NaN right? do we actually need the triple here?

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Not really. But with JS it's better safe than sorry.

The GP's addition is unnecessary, but I fully support anyone that decides to do it.

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 2 points 7 months ago
[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago
[-] marcos@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago
[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

what a wonderful and beautiful language. i’m so glad i asked

[-] ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

And so wonderfully similar to the way that symbol is used in other languages as well. Gosh darn it I love JavaScript

[-] Oszilloraptor@feddit.de 8 points 7 months ago

the is_even package does not provide much worth indeed because it simply negates is_odd and thereby all its benefit.

It's dependency is_odd on the other hand provides at least some additional checks (it also checks if the value is a valid integer below the max int value)

And while I would indeed see uses for such methods (especially with the other checks, no simple oneliners) in some cases, especially in testing: This is stuff you write yourself, throw it in a e.g. NumberUtils class and everything is fine. You do never depend on an external library for that. The benefit (not spending a few seconds to write it) does not outweigh any of the drawbacks that come with external libraries.

load more comments (31 replies)
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
473 points (98.2% liked)

Programmer Humor

32332 readers
36 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS