674
all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] stevehobbes@lemmy.world 231 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Jennifer is a lesbian. Her wife, now husband, who she’s proudly supportive of, is FtM, with 3 previous children that Jennifer adopted. Jennifer has never had penetrative sex with a man.

[-] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 133 points 2 years ago

Found the senior dev

[-] LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago

… checks out.

[-] unreachable@lemmy.my.id 11 points 2 years ago

interpreter programming language

[-] SpicyKetchup@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago

This would make her not a lesbian after her husband transitioned.

[-] morphballganon@lemmynsfw.com 25 points 2 years ago

Depends. Could be. A person transitioning doesn't necessitate their partner finding their new body attractive.

[-] SingularEye@lemmy.blahaj.zone 98 points 2 years ago

artificial insemination; beard marriage, loves her husband platonically. I am a JS dev.

[-] Kraivo@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Lesbian, in marriage with another lesbian and adopted 3 kids. Still virgin.

[-] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 years ago

Her partner is actually a woman, but dynamic type casts made her write "husband".

[-] unreachable@lemmy.my.id 14 points 2 years ago

and by kids, she means their cats and/or dogs

[-] amanaftermidnight@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Ah yes, the fursons and furdaughters.

[-] colorado@programming.dev 11 points 2 years ago

We prefer the gender neutral fur baby in this household.

[-] pastaq@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

That's ageist.

[-] IGuessThisIsForNSFW@yiffit.net 9 points 2 years ago

I was thinking they were his kids from the previous marriage, though artificial insemination works just as well!

[-] scottywh@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I've had a JavaScript certification for over a decade now and I think I hate you.

[-] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 22 points 2 years ago

Simple. Malformed data from.a bad actor. Always sanity check your shit.

[-] Coreidan@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

If you have that much difficulty with JavaScript then it’s likely you’ll suffer with any language.

[-] MakeAvoy@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago

Except strict equality, that's a JavaScript only problem. Imagine thinking "0" should be falsy in comparison due to string literal evaluation, but truthy with logical not applied based on non-empty string. Thus !"0"=="0" is true. They couldn't just throw away == and start over nooooo let's add === . Utter madness

[-] soloner@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Browser compatibility. Design flaws can't easily be fixed like how other languages can just switch to a new major version and introduce breaking changes. ES must keep backwards compatibility so has had to do more additive changes than replacing behavior altogether so that older web pages pages don't break.

Meanwhile google is about to break the internet with html drm

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago

Strict vs loose equality has gotten me so many times, but I can sort of see why they did it. The problem you mention with integers 0 & 1 is a major annoyance though. Like it is fairly common to check whether a variable is populated by using if (variable) {} - if the variable happens to be an integer, and that integer happens to be 0, loose quality will reflect that as false.

But on the other side, there have been plenty of occasions where I'm expecting a boolean to come from somewhere and instead the data is passed as a text string. "true" == true but "true" !== true

[-] MakeAvoy@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago

Lua does intrinsic evaluation of strings that i'd argue is not nearly as crazy. I get the value of it since half of interpreted languages it just churning through strings. But I also don't recommend any large codebase ever use JS's == or string coercion because it can go against expectations. This graph argues in JS's favor but comparison is a little more crazy https://algassert.com/visualization/2014/03/27/Better-JS-Equality-Table.html

[-] bappity@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago
[-] Ddhuud@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

!NaN

(Translation: I agree)

[-] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Any senior developer who says that should instantly get a demotion to intern.

[-] Moc@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

There are two kinds of simple

  • Simple to learn to use
  • Simple to understand, and use at a complex level.

JavaScript is the first, but definitely not the second.

[-] HarkMahlberg@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

Which part? Saying that it's simple, or making fun of saying that it's simple?

[-] terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago
[-] royal_starfish@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

And I thought kotlin was crazy with whatever (modifier: Modifier = Modifier) means to make it happy

this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
674 points (95.2% liked)

Programmer Humor

22233 readers
821 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS