You like JavaScript, the language where parenthesizing an expression can change the value of that expression[1]: > {} + [] <- 0 > ({} + []) <- "[obje

You like JavaScript, the language where parenthesizing an expression can change the value of that expression[1]: > {} + [] <- 0 > ({} + []) <- "[object Object]" or how the identity x|0 == x doesn't hold for all "integers"[2]: > 4294967296 | 0 <- 0 or how function definitions aren't grammatically statements, making this[3]: function foo() { function bar() {} // legal if(1) { function baz() {} // illegal! } } this just always bites me: > "a string" instanceof String <- false (but seriously, I don't understand why JavaScript needed the object/primitive distinction. I get it for Java, but not in JS.) > sometimes I feel that the language works against you, and not with you. JavaScript is the language where you ask it, "here, I want to know which of these guns most adequately shoots my foot." ES6 improves things considerably; in 10 years we'll have good browser support for basic data structures, like Map and Set. [1]: I'm joking. Read it first, then return to this footnote. The sleight of hand is this: the first expression parses as an empty code block, followed by a unary plus taking an empty list. The second parses as binary addition. There's also a terrible amount of coercion taking place. This also "means" that binary addition "isn't" commutative: {}+[] and []+{} evaluate to different values; the same trickery is involved. [2]: the binary or operator, |, silently converts the operands to a signed 32bit integer for the duration of the expression. Note that signed 32bit integer is a type not available to the JavaScript programmer — it only arises internally! (The only numerical type available is "Number", which is an IEEE double.) [3]: the grammar for functions is essentially "list of statements or function definitions", so function definitions are only valid at the "top level" of a function.