Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
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.
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.
I am not good friends with js, what did I miss?
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, becauseundefined
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.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.Yet the array contains exactly three nothings.
It’s like a zen koan.
Time is a flat circle
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.
We wrote it wrong on purpose, as a joke.
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.
This evaluates to NaN for some reason:
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.
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 aboutthe remainder operator should return a number or a NaN right? do we actually need the triple here?
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.
point taken!