Programmer Humor

32549 readers

506 users here now

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

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

cat_programmer@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

474

The code was very janky, but it worked (i.imgflip.com)

submitted 8 months ago by cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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 8 months ago (2 children)

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 8 months ago

Yet the array contains exactly three nothings.

It's like a zen koan.

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

Time is a flat circle

[–] Kindness@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 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 8 months ago (1 children)

We wrote it wrong on purpose, as a joke.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 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 8 months ago (1 children)

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 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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

[–] carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not a JS dev either but ===.

Not really sure what the (+x) is about

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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 8 months ago

point taken!