I have plenty of complaints about Javascript, but most of these aren't it. I haven't done any serious javascript in something like 6 years, and I still got most

I have plenty of complaints about Javascript, but most of these aren't it. I haven't done any serious javascript in something like 6 years, and I still got most of this right without much effort. #4, #13, #14, #21 and #24 are floating point problems and are nothing to do with JavaScript. A bunch of them are just "learn the language" issues: #2 I only got wrong because I never noticed JS allows trailing commas. Trailing commas are pretty damn common in most modern languages though. The syntax for empty initialisation of arrays is weird (and I'd argue is a mistake), but the behaviour is exactly what you'd expect. #5 is the comma operator as also seen in C and C++. #8 is something nobody should get wrong. Three nots in front of a true is false. Of course it is. #10 is just an octal literal. They're becoming increasingly rare in modern languages, and were never quite as common as hex literals, but they're also not terribly obscure. #15 is one I'm slightly ashamed I got wrong. It makes no sense to use increment operators on a bare value. This is common to just about all languages that support increment operators (and it's those, if any, that don't agree are in the wrong) #22 is a slightly surprising counterpoint, but it also makes sense. I don't know of a language that has a NaN literal, and JavaScript is no exception. So that NaN is actually a global that is bound to the floating point value NaN. Because it is a global, it can be incremented (but incrementing NaN is still NaN). Everything else is a type coercion issue. #18 and #23 are coercions I really disagree with. Coercing things to a number shouldn't produce NaN. That truly is crazy. Throwing is the only reasonable behaviour here. Ruby is even worse than JS here ("true".to_i produces 0), Python gets it right. Other than that, the coercions are all fairly make sense, and are consistent with what other languages do. Now, implicit type coercion (especially under the guise of abstract equality) is a terrible idea because it's easy to do it by accident and get nonsensical results, but the coercions themselves are, by and large, pretty sane.