4 ms·
>the weak typing argument is a little... weak. I think you contradict this in the rest of your comment: >Javascript is poorly designed because there are these
by nanny 11y ago
>the weak typing argument is a little... weak.
I think you contradict this in the rest of your comment:
>Javascript is poorly designed because there are these rules you need to learn and because there are some language features that you just don't use.
One rule you've mentioned:
>using === over ==
Which is a result of weak typing. So maybe weak typing is a language feature "that you just don't use"? Which, according to you, makes weak typing a reason why JavaScript is poorly designed.
- adrusi 11y agoIt was not my intention to imply that javascript is not weakly typed. And I think we have collectively determined (correctly) that weak typing is a burden in a general-purpose language. So yes, your conclusion is correct, weak typing is "a reason" that javascript is poorly designed. But your claim wasn't "weak typing was a bad design decision", it was "JavaScript's weak typing is unequivocally one of the worst things about the language". I think it's silly to call a mis-feature "unequivocally one of the worst things" when people who write javascript basically never run into, and when it can be completely avoided by using unintrusive tooling like a linter.