3 ms·

Wow, who came up with that idea? And people say Haskell is hard to learn...

marcosdumay 7y ago
Weak types. When neither the function nor the parameters have hard types, you have to create heuristics. There could be a test for numbers there, but it would also be surprising because at the older days people expected "10" and 10 to behave the same.
- willtim 7y ago
  Most would expect 10 to parse as an integer. To specify a string, most would be happy with putting quotes around it. So I don't think dynamic types fully explains the bizarre behaviour.
  - matthuggins 7y ago
    What if you tried to sort an array of objects or functions?
    - willtim 7y ago
      If one doesn't specify a comparator and there is no obvious/sensible default, then an error would be perfectly reasonable.
- bernawil 7y ago
  It's not because of "weak types" since the types inside the array don't get their type information erased. It's because Array.sort takes a comparison function but the default function instead of being something like [1, 10, 2].sort((a,b) => a > b ? 1 : -1) // -> [1, 2, 10] is something like // [1, 10, 2].sort((a,b) => a.toString() > b.toString() ? 1 : -1) // -> [1, 10, 2] because someone thought that it was "best" to cast stuff to string in case whatever you put in the container didn't implement comparison.
  - Stratoscope 7y ago
    Both of your examples have invalid sort comparator functions. A JavaScript sort comparator is required to not only return a positive or negative value, it must handle all three cases: greater than, less than, or equal. When the arguments compare equal, the comparator must return 0. Returning only a positive or negative value is a very common error. (I don't mean to pick on you for this! I have seen the error so often that I hope this may be helpful for anyone writing a sort comparator.) The invalid comparator will force the normally stable sort to be unstable, because sort() now has no way to know that two items should be considered equal and their existing order preserved. Let's demonstrate with the "doggos" example that the article links to: https://mathiasbynens.be/demo/sort-stability https://mathiasbynens.be/demo/sort-stability The code starts with this array: const doggos = [ { name: 'Choco', rating: 12 }, { name: 'Devlin', rating: 13 }, { name: 'Eagle', rating: 13 }, { name: 'Jenny', rating: 13 }, { name: 'Kona', rating: 13 }, { name: 'Leila', rating: 13 }, { name: 'Milly', rating: 14 }, { name: 'Molly', rating: 12 }, { name: 'Nova', rating: 12 }, { name: 'Oliver', rating: 13 }, { name: 'Patches', rating: 14 }, ]; It uses this valid comparator: doggos.sort( ( a, b ) => b.rating - a.rating ); (Note that this implements a reverse sort as can be seen in the output on the test page.) Subtraction provides the proper return values when two numbers are compared: any negative number, any positive number, or zero when the ratings are equal. Another valid comparator (again using a reverse sort) would be: doggos.sort( ( a, b ) => a.rating < b.rating ? 1 : a.rating > b.rating ? -1 : 0 ); Either way you get the expected output in the current version of Chrome, which has a stable sort. Each group of doggos with the same rating appear in their original order: [ { name: "Milly", rating: 14 }, { name: "Patches", rating: 14 }, { name: "Devlin", rating: 13 }, { name: "Eagle", rating: 13 }, { name: "Jenny", rating: 13 }, { name: "Kona", rating: 13 }, { name: "Leila", rating: 13 }, { name: "Oliver", rating: 13 }, { name: "Choco", rating: 12 }, { name: "Molly", rating: 12 }, { name: "Nova", rating: 12 } ] So let's go back to the original doggos array and use a sort function that only returns 1 or -1 (once again using a reverse sort): doggos.sort( ( a, b ) => a.rating < b.rating ? 1 : -1 ); With this function, the result is: [ { "name": "Patches", "rating": 14 }, { "name": "Milly", "rating": 14 }, { "name": "Oliver", "rating": 13 }, { "name": "Leila", "rating": 13 }, { "name": "Kona", "rating": 13 }, { "name": "Jenny", "rating": 13 }, { "name": "Eagle", "rating": 13 }, { "name": "Devlin", "rating": 13 }, { "name": "Nova", "rating": 12 }, { "name": "Molly", "rating": 12 }, { "name": "Choco", "rating": 12 } ] Now the sort has become unstable. Doggos with the same rating are no longer in their original order. Bottom line, be sure to handle all three cases in your sort comparator if you want a stable sort.

Weak types. When neither the function nor the parameters have hard types, you have to create heuristics. There could be a test for numbers there, but it would also be surprising because at the older days people expected "10" and 10 to behave the same.

willtim 7y ago
Most would expect 10 to parse as an integer. To specify a string, most would be happy with putting quotes around it. So I don't think dynamic types fully explains the bizarre behaviour.
- matthuggins 7y ago
  What if you tried to sort an array of objects or functions?
  - willtim 7y ago
    If one doesn't specify a comparator and there is no obvious/sensible default, then an error would be perfectly reasonable.
bernawil 7y ago
It's not because of "weak types" since the types inside the array don't get their type information erased. It's because Array.sort takes a comparison function but the default function instead of being something like [1, 10, 2].sort((a,b) => a > b ? 1 : -1) // -> [1, 2, 10] is something like // [1, 10, 2].sort((a,b) => a.toString() > b.toString() ? 1 : -1) // -> [1, 10, 2] because someone thought that it was "best" to cast stuff to string in case whatever you put in the container didn't implement comparison.
- Stratoscope 7y ago
  Both of your examples have invalid sort comparator functions. A JavaScript sort comparator is required to not only return a positive or negative value, it must handle all three cases: greater than, less than, or equal. When the arguments compare equal, the comparator must return 0. Returning only a positive or negative value is a very common error. (I don't mean to pick on you for this! I have seen the error so often that I hope this may be helpful for anyone writing a sort comparator.) The invalid comparator will force the normally stable sort to be unstable, because sort() now has no way to know that two items should be considered equal and their existing order preserved. Let's demonstrate with the "doggos" example that the article links to: https://mathiasbynens.be/demo/sort-stability https://mathiasbynens.be/demo/sort-stability The code starts with this array: const doggos = [ { name: 'Choco', rating: 12 }, { name: 'Devlin', rating: 13 }, { name: 'Eagle', rating: 13 }, { name: 'Jenny', rating: 13 }, { name: 'Kona', rating: 13 }, { name: 'Leila', rating: 13 }, { name: 'Milly', rating: 14 }, { name: 'Molly', rating: 12 }, { name: 'Nova', rating: 12 }, { name: 'Oliver', rating: 13 }, { name: 'Patches', rating: 14 }, ]; It uses this valid comparator: doggos.sort( ( a, b ) => b.rating - a.rating ); (Note that this implements a reverse sort as can be seen in the output on the test page.) Subtraction provides the proper return values when two numbers are compared: any negative number, any positive number, or zero when the ratings are equal. Another valid comparator (again using a reverse sort) would be: doggos.sort( ( a, b ) => a.rating < b.rating ? 1 : a.rating > b.rating ? -1 : 0 ); Either way you get the expected output in the current version of Chrome, which has a stable sort. Each group of doggos with the same rating appear in their original order: [ { name: "Milly", rating: 14 }, { name: "Patches", rating: 14 }, { name: "Devlin", rating: 13 }, { name: "Eagle", rating: 13 }, { name: "Jenny", rating: 13 }, { name: "Kona", rating: 13 }, { name: "Leila", rating: 13 }, { name: "Oliver", rating: 13 }, { name: "Choco", rating: 12 }, { name: "Molly", rating: 12 }, { name: "Nova", rating: 12 } ] So let's go back to the original doggos array and use a sort function that only returns 1 or -1 (once again using a reverse sort): doggos.sort( ( a, b ) => a.rating < b.rating ? 1 : -1 ); With this function, the result is: [ { "name": "Patches", "rating": 14 }, { "name": "Milly", "rating": 14 }, { "name": "Oliver", "rating": 13 }, { "name": "Leila", "rating": 13 }, { "name": "Kona", "rating": 13 }, { "name": "Jenny", "rating": 13 }, { "name": "Eagle", "rating": 13 }, { "name": "Devlin", "rating": 13 }, { "name": "Nova", "rating": 12 }, { "name": "Molly", "rating": 12 }, { "name": "Choco", "rating": 12 } ] Now the sort has become unstable. Doggos with the same rating are no longer in their original order. Bottom line, be sure to handle all three cases in your sort comparator if you want a stable sort.