this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
1012 points (98.6% liked)

Programmer Humor

23849 readers
2280 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 40 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yup. It's completely inconsistent in its interpretation of the + operator.

[โ€“] Gsus4@mander.xyz 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I actually had to try 1+"11" to check that it didn't give me 12, but thankfully ~~it commutes~~ it's consistent ๐Ÿ˜‡

[โ€“] palordrolap@fedia.io 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

it commutes

Maybe the behaviour with regard to type conversion, but not for the operation itself.

"13"+12 and 12+"13" don't yield the same result.

[โ€“] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nor would I expect "1312" to equal "1213".. Still that operator with these operands should just throw an exception

[โ€“] palordrolap@fedia.io 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Given it's JavaScript, which was expressly designed to carry on regardless, I could see an argument for it returning NaN, (or silently doing what Perl does, like I mention in a different comment) but then there'd have to be an entirely different way of concatenating strings.

expressly designed to carry on regardless

I'm surprised they didn't borrow On Error Resume Next from Visual Basic. Which was wrongly considered to be the worst thing in Visual Basic - when the real worst thing was On Error Resume. On Error Resume Next at least moved on to the next line of code when an error occurred; On Error Resume just executed the error-generating line again ... and again ... and again ... and again ...

[โ€“] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why would you need an entirely different way of concatenating strings? "11" + 1 -> exception. "11" + to_string(1) = "111"

[โ€“] palordrolap@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're right. I've got too much Perl on the brain and forgot my roots. There is a language that does what you're talking about with the '+' operator: BASIC

Good luck getting the same thing retrofitted into JavaScript though. I can imagine a large number of websites would break or develop mysterious problems if this (mis)behaviour was fixed.

I don't think there's a way to retrofit JS - but php versions are deprecated all the time. Why not do the same with client-side script versions? :)