4 ms·

Why wouldn’t “false” be true? It’s a non-empty string.

ascar 1y ago
yea that's an odd example to pick. expecting type conversion to add meaning to strings is a programmer problem not a language problem. really comes down to developers not thinking about types and their meaning anymore. there are plenty of javascript examples that are actually weird though, especiall when javascript DOES apply meaning to strings, e.g. when attempting implicit integer parsing.
- 010101010101 1y ago
  It’s the _existence_ of an implicit conversion from string to boolean that the parent is pointing out as a problem, not how it’s implemented. But that’s Jãvascript bb
  - echoangle 1y ago
    Maybe I’m missing the example but can you not check the truthiness of strings in basically any high level language? At least python does it the same way and it’s very useful.
    - 010101010101 1y ago
      neither Java nor .Net have implicit string to boolean conversions, the only way to asses the truthiness of a string is an explicit conversion - there’s no “if(someStringVariable)” - that’s just a type error at compile time.
tialaramex 1y ago
For the same reason dogs aren't the square root of two and justice isn't golf? They're not the same kind of thing at all, if you insist that we should be able to compare them then they're not equal, and since programmers are human and make mistakes probably comparing them is itself a mistake.
- wiseowise 1y ago
  You've completely disregarded type system rules of the language, and continue doubling down on your ignorance with ridiculous examples. > They're not the same kind of thing at all, if you insist that we should be able to compare them then they're not equal, and since programmers are human and make mistakes probably comparing them is itself a mistake. It is literally encoded in the spec. https://262.ecma-international.org/13.0/#sec-toboolean https://262.ecma-international.org/13.0/#sec-toboolean
  - thfuran 1y ago
    But it shouldn’t be
    - recursive 1y ago
      So what should be the value of `"false" == true`?
      - bmicraft 1y ago
        undefined or TypeError would be suitable.
        recursive 1y ago
        So shall we require checking for matching type of first? It doesn't seem like an improvement to me.
        thfuran 1y ago
        Should a list ever equal seven? Should a float equal a socket? Some comparisons just don't make sense.
        recursive 1y ago
        > Should a list ever equal seven? Should a float equal a socket? No. > Some comparisons just don't make sense. The comparison makes enough sense to me to determine the result.
camblomquist 1y ago
edit: I'm mostly wrong here. Because "0" is false. In a logical world, a non-empty string being truthy is fine even if the value is "false". Javascript isn't logical.
- wiseowise 1y ago
``` > if ("0") console.log("true"); true ``` Excuse me? > In a logical world, a non-empty string being truthy is fine even if the value is "false". Javascript isn't logical. You must hate our illogical world built on C, because it has the same behavior.
- camblomquist 1y ago
  I did a `"0" == false` which returned true. I may need another cup of coffee before making claims.
- jameshart 1y ago
  Appealing to C - the land of undefined behavior - as a paragon of logic seems like a strange authority to reach for.
  - wiseowise 1y ago
    The point is that this is a well-defined (not pun intended) behavior that exists within C, C++, Python, Ruby and probably a handful more popular languages. This set pretty much constitutes like 70%(?) of mainstream languages. Yet only JS gets shit thrown its way in this thread.

yea that's an odd example to pick. expecting type conversion to add meaning to strings is a programmer problem not a language problem. really comes down to developers not thinking about types and their meaning anymore. there are plenty of javascript examples that are actually weird though, especiall when javascript DOES apply meaning to strings, e.g. when attempting implicit integer parsing.

010101010101 1y ago
It’s the _existence_ of an implicit conversion from string to boolean that the parent is pointing out as a problem, not how it’s implemented. But that’s Jãvascript bb
- echoangle 1y ago
  Maybe I’m missing the example but can you not check the truthiness of strings in basically any high level language? At least python does it the same way and it’s very useful.
  - 010101010101 1y ago
    neither Java nor .Net have implicit string to boolean conversions, the only way to asses the truthiness of a string is an explicit conversion - there’s no “if(someStringVariable)” - that’s just a type error at compile time.

tialaramex 1y ago

For the same reason dogs aren't the square root of two and justice isn't golf? They're not the same kind of thing at all, if you insist that we should be able to compare them then they're not equal, and since programmers are human and make mistakes probably comparing them is itself a mistake.

wiseowise 1y ago
You've completely disregarded type system rules of the language, and continue doubling down on your ignorance with ridiculous examples. > They're not the same kind of thing at all, if you insist that we should be able to compare them then they're not equal, and since programmers are human and make mistakes probably comparing them is itself a mistake. It is literally encoded in the spec. https://262.ecma-international.org/13.0/#sec-toboolean https://262.ecma-international.org/13.0/#sec-toboolean
- thfuran 1y ago
  But it shouldn’t be
  - recursive 1y ago
    So what should be the value of `"false" == true`?
    - bmicraft 1y ago
      undefined or TypeError would be suitable.
      - recursive 1y ago
        So shall we require checking for matching type of first? It doesn't seem like an improvement to me.
        thfuran 1y ago
        Should a list ever equal seven? Should a float equal a socket? Some comparisons just don't make sense.
        recursive 1y ago
        > Should a list ever equal seven? Should a float equal a socket? No. > Some comparisons just don't make sense. The comparison makes enough sense to me to determine the result.

camblomquist 1y ago

edit: I'm mostly wrong here. Because "0" is false. In a logical world, a non-empty string being truthy is fine even if the value is "false". Javascript isn't logical.

wiseowise 1y ago
``` > if ("0") console.log("true"); true ``` Excuse me? > In a logical world, a non-empty string being truthy is fine even if the value is "false". Javascript isn't logical. You must hate our illogical world built on C, because it has the same behavior.
- camblomquist 1y ago
  I did a `"0" == false` which returned true. I may need another cup of coffee before making claims.
- jameshart 1y ago
  Appealing to C - the land of undefined behavior - as a paragon of logic seems like a strange authority to reach for.
  - wiseowise 1y ago
    The point is that this is a well-defined (not pun intended) behavior that exists within C, C++, Python, Ruby and probably a handful more popular languages. This set pretty much constitutes like 70%(?) of mainstream languages. Yet only JS gets shit thrown its way in this thread.