4 ms·

1) Isn't it just (!isNaN(num) && isFinite(num))? I know that's pretty far from intuitive, but it's not as bad as you made it sound. That being said, i'd love an

1) Isn't it just (!isNaN(num) && isFinite(num))? I know that's pretty far from intuitive, but it's not as bad as you made it sound. That being said, i'd love an `isNumber` function at some point... 2) I felt the same way for a while, but recently I was working on something where I ended up really "abusing" the prototype system, and when you actually spend the time to learn it, it's not that bad! It's different, that's for sure, but it's not bad. I like to think sometimes that if javascript came before C, would we still call many of these things "bad"? Would we call javascript's equality table "weird", or would it be C's that was the weird one? Would C be the star in a talk labeled 'Wat' where they laugh at the absurdity of 'a' == 97? So much of the stuff that people complain about in JS is because they have expectations from other languages. Sometimes those expectations are a good thing, but other times they are just different, and taking the time to actually learn how and why it's different can make you a much better programmer. 3) I genuinely like this about JS. There is no "one true way". The language is free to evolve, change, get new features, get new functionality, and easily "polyfill" old browsers outside of the release cycle. And that's important in JS because there is no one "authority". Keeping the stdlib small means that it's easier for new implementations to crop up, and it leaves the "niceties" to be developed by libraries. It's what allows libraries like ramada and lodash to be so powerful. They wouldn't be where they are today if the stdlib was more opinionated/complete. 4) But again I kind of like this. It does often make things more difficult, but at the same time it improves the ecosystem. I honestly believe that the fact that there are competing implementations is pretty much the only reason javascript (and in some ways, all dynamic languages) are as fast as they are today! Not only that but the fact that there are multiple competing implementations keeps most devs "honest". For the most part I don't need to worry about someone writing code that will run on version X on platform Y. I don't need to worry that the next "update" will require us to spend a week cleaning up removed functionality. It does lead to a lot of "crap" accumulating in the language, but over time that crap can and will be removed. JS is a fluid, constantly-evolving language, and because of that you tend target a point in time, not a "release", and the impressively awesome backwards compatibility means that while your older code might look outdated, it's not going to suddenly stop working. I do agree that complex JS programs need much more tooling to be manageable, but it's working out very well in my experience. It's just different.

jomamaxx 10y ago
"1) Isn't it just (!isNaN(num) && isFinite(num))? I know that's pretty far from intuitive, but it's not as bad as you made it sound. That being said, i'd love an `isNumber` function at some point..." You just proved my point! A) Even if you are correct - it's terrible. This is completely ridiculous that there's no basic check for extremely common and mundane type-checking. Moreover, it's the same issue for other types! B) Worse: you're wrong. isNaN('100') = false isFinite('100') = true The string '100' would pass your check as a Number :) Underscore uses: "toString.call(number) === '[object ' + Number + ']';" So noodle on that for a while: I'm assuming you're an experienced JS programmer and you can't test to see if something is a number! Embarrassed? It's ok. 9/10 JS programmers would get it wrong. I had to look it up! Which is my point - it's really bad! 2) Prototyping is not bad because it's prototyping - it's bad because it's really confusing. Point: nobody has - or will 'borrow' this idea form JS. Again - almost zero JS devs really understand how it works. 3) Again I disagree. There definitely should be a 'true way' for the most common operations. There should only be one 'true way' to test to see if something is a Number (!) - and for basic things like string operations - 'one true way' is better. For so, so many reasons. 4) "For the most part I don't need to worry about someone writing code that will run on version X on platform Y" - sure you do. You cannot use 'const' or 'let' in Safari/iOS. You can in Chrome. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of such mismatches - and it's a fragmentation nightmare. Now - I agree with your point about 'competing versions' hey, that's great. But they are 'not the same platform' - which is totally destructive.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  1) well look at that! I guess i've gotten a bit spoiled relying on lodash as much as I do! 2) There are aspects of prototypes that JS makes much worse (mainly the whole "this" clusterfuck), but the base is pretty sane and easy to understand. But at that point i'm not even talking about javascript any more, so I guess you are right here too. 3) I still disagree with you here. Yeah, there should be a way for the stdlib to do simple low level things (like isNumber()), but for others "one true way" isn't the best. I'd love a better stdlib, but I don't want something like Go's stdlib. I'd rather the language define a "bare minimum" and let libraries take over the rest. Now, as with anything in life this should be taken in moderation, if there are massive gains to be had by including something, then it probably should be included. Maybe this is stockholm syndrome setting in, but I'd rather have the choice of implementation of something in-language, because there are so many different engine implementations. 4) I was more speaking of things like a python library that only runs on 2.7, or a java application that only works on 6. For the most part, those things just don't happen in javascript. Yeah, you need to not use newer features until they roll out everywhere, but once they do, you are safe in using them for a pretty damn long time. In your example, you can't use const/let right now because safari is the last big holdout here. iOS 10 was just released, and with it Safari 10. In another month, i'd feel comfortable using const/let without transpiling it, and I won't need to worry about it again. But another benefit of multiple different implementations is they are free to optimize for different things. For example, Espruino is a JS engine that runs on microcontrollers and is EXTREMELY low power. Chakra (Edge's engine) shoots for really fast startup speed. V8 is pretty much the king in terms of raw execution speed. Contrast this with the Java way of having a million settings, knobs, options, and flags in the engine to tune the system the way you want. Yeah, you can do that, but most don't because of the complexity and risk involved. And there is only so much that you can do while having to support every option in the same engine. Like i said earlier, i'm not sure if it's stockholm syndrome taking effect, but JS is by far my favorite language, and despite all it's flaws, issues, problems, and mistakes, it's also the language i'm most productive in. And with ES2015+ it's only getting better. (although i'm dreading the time when modules start getting into implementations, and how they conflict with current solutions, that's going to be a NIGHTMARE in just about every way).

jomamaxx 10y ago

"1) Isn't it just (!isNaN(num) && isFinite(num))? I know that's pretty far from intuitive, but it's not as bad as you made it sound. That being said, i'd love an `isNumber` function at some point..." You just proved my point! A) Even if you are correct - it's terrible. This is completely ridiculous that there's no basic check for extremely common and mundane type-checking. Moreover, it's the same issue for other types! B) Worse: you're wrong. isNaN('100') = false isFinite('100') = true The string '100' would pass your check as a Number :) Underscore uses: "toString.call(number) === '[object ' + Number + ']';" So noodle on that for a while: I'm assuming you're an experienced JS programmer and you can't test to see if something is a number! Embarrassed? It's ok. 9/10 JS programmers would get it wrong. I had to look it up! Which is my point - it's really bad! 2) Prototyping is not bad because it's prototyping - it's bad because it's really confusing. Point: nobody has - or will 'borrow' this idea form JS. Again - almost zero JS devs really understand how it works. 3) Again I disagree. There definitely should be a 'true way' for the most common operations. There should only be one 'true way' to test to see if something is a Number (!) - and for basic things like string operations - 'one true way' is better. For so, so many reasons. 4) "For the most part I don't need to worry about someone writing code that will run on version X on platform Y" - sure you do. You cannot use 'const' or 'let' in Safari/iOS. You can in Chrome. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of such mismatches - and it's a fragmentation nightmare. Now - I agree with your point about 'competing versions' hey, that's great. But they are 'not the same platform' - which is totally destructive.

Klathmon 10y ago
1) well look at that! I guess i've gotten a bit spoiled relying on lodash as much as I do! 2) There are aspects of prototypes that JS makes much worse (mainly the whole "this" clusterfuck), but the base is pretty sane and easy to understand. But at that point i'm not even talking about javascript any more, so I guess you are right here too. 3) I still disagree with you here. Yeah, there should be a way for the stdlib to do simple low level things (like isNumber()), but for others "one true way" isn't the best. I'd love a better stdlib, but I don't want something like Go's stdlib. I'd rather the language define a "bare minimum" and let libraries take over the rest. Now, as with anything in life this should be taken in moderation, if there are massive gains to be had by including something, then it probably should be included. Maybe this is stockholm syndrome setting in, but I'd rather have the choice of implementation of something in-language, because there are so many different engine implementations. 4) I was more speaking of things like a python library that only runs on 2.7, or a java application that only works on 6. For the most part, those things just don't happen in javascript. Yeah, you need to not use newer features until they roll out everywhere, but once they do, you are safe in using them for a pretty damn long time. In your example, you can't use const/let right now because safari is the last big holdout here. iOS 10 was just released, and with it Safari 10. In another month, i'd feel comfortable using const/let without transpiling it, and I won't need to worry about it again. But another benefit of multiple different implementations is they are free to optimize for different things. For example, Espruino is a JS engine that runs on microcontrollers and is EXTREMELY low power. Chakra (Edge's engine) shoots for really fast startup speed. V8 is pretty much the king in terms of raw execution speed. Contrast this with the Java way of having a million settings, knobs, options, and flags in the engine to tune the system the way you want. Yeah, you can do that, but most don't because of the complexity and risk involved. And there is only so much that you can do while having to support every option in the same engine. Like i said earlier, i'm not sure if it's stockholm syndrome taking effect, but JS is by far my favorite language, and despite all it's flaws, issues, problems, and mistakes, it's also the language i'm most productive in. And with ES2015+ it's only getting better. (although i'm dreading the time when modules start getting into implementations, and how they conflict with current solutions, that's going to be a NIGHTMARE in just about every way).