You’ll find an npm package to help you count up to 2.
(I recently learned - maybe here - that the is-even package has over 170k weekly downloads)
What’s even wilder is if you look at the code of that package, all it does is include the is-odd package and then return !is-odd. And the is-odd package isn’t much better, it does some basic checks on the input and then returns n % 2 === 1.
I thought I was missing something. JS is one of my main languages and I always just write the is-odd function myself since it’s like 10 characters. It boggles the mind that is-even has 176k weekly downloads
To be fair having a name can make things easier to read. I get that
i % 2 == 0is a common pattern and most programmers will quickly recognize what is happening. ButisEven(i)is just that much easier to grok and leaves that brainpower to work on something else.But I would never import a package for it. I would just create a local helper for something this trivial.
Exactly what I would do if I had to reuse it, especially now since I know that adding a package would actually add 2. It all just seems so…inefficient
Even if the code isn’t reused adding names to sub-expressions can be very valuable. Often times I introduce new functions or variables even if they are only used once so that I can give them a descriptive name which helps the reader more quickly understand what is happening.
Yeah, I do that with pretty much every separate operation in c# since our solutions are pretty big. Most of my JS scripts are just done in ServiceNow which are separated and named appropriately.
Also there are 40-something packages depending on it, so I guess it gets pulled automatically when they are used.
If youre lazy/busy enough, doing basic checks on the input is enough boilerplate to package out.
I’ve always looked at stuff like that as much more along the lines of performance art than anything else.
Is-even continues to be the best joke in the industry
This must be a “hold my beer” kind of joke and someone wanting to see how far they can take it.
Oh boy, this actually made me laugh out loud
- it’s easy to make fun of
- it makes every other programming language look better in comparison
- It runs in browsers
- If you hate your co-workers, then they will also feel your pain.
- It runs in the browser
- Web developers know it already so we might as well
- You can call it “Java” to enrage other programmers
- You can compare numbers against strings without wasting time converting them
Array(16).join(“wat” - 1) + " Batman!";
JavaScript: :wide eyed and smiling: Sure why not! You’re the boss!
Python: Sighing and downing half a bottle of Advil: Sure. Why not, you’re the boss.
If you’re living in 2002 and not using the strict equality operator, that’s on you
But what if I don’t want strict comparison? What if my frontend contains a text field for a numeric input and I wanna manually check against each possible valid input value
if (input_val == 1) {...} else if (input_val == 2) {...} else if...without having to convert it first or check that it’s actually a number or fix my frontend?(I’m sure there are valid use cases for non-strict comparison, I just can’t think of one right now)
why wouldn’t you just convert inline?
(Number(input_val) === 2)Converting would mean you could use a switch statement with your example rather than an if else ladder
switch(Number(input_val)) { case 1: doTheFirstThing(); break; case 2: doTheSecondThing(); break; case 3: doTheThirdThing(); break; }If you’re looking for good code, you missed the point of my comment 😄
If I was looking for an enumeration of valid inputs, I’d make it a selection box rather than a text field that’s supposed to contain a number and give the selections reasonable names. If I want an integral quantity, I’d use a number input field.
If I have no control over the frontend, that means I’m writing a backend in JS for a bullshit frontend, and no amount of good coding practice is going to salvage this mess.
I’m also blessedly far away from WebDev now. I work in Data Analytics and if I ever have to do any of this for a living, something has gone very wrong.
Converting texts into numbers or dates still haunts me though - fuck text inputs for numbers and dates.
deleted by creator
The scripting language formerly known as Java.
- It has the simplest multi-threaded implementation: no threads!
- You can goof off while your build system takes 20 minutes to rebuild a non-compiled language
node_modules size of a Linux distro
1 - Easiest way to run a script in your browser
2 - Always finds its way if inputs are bad
Nan - undefinedNaN is of type number. because fuck me.
To be fair, this is actually reasonable. But it does look stupid on the face of it.
When my console throws a NaN I kinda think of it as an Halloween kid receiving a fruit instead of a candy. They won’t say “That’s a fruit”. They’ll say “That’s not a treat”.
I’m personally pissed more often by a falsy 0.
Did you know that early analog computers would literally explode when asked to divide by 0?
Now computers just say “Hey stupid, that shit is not even a Number in a mathematical sense, but sure I’ll add one to it.” instead of “Why would you kill me like this?”
You can’t really define Infinity as a number, yet it is part of their world.
So typeof NaN === ‘number’ totally makes sense in that regard.
If you ever worked with arrays of dates, don’t judge NaN too harshly.
Falsy zero? What’s wrong with that, 1 is true and 0 is false. I thought that was standard logic?
in javascript a property is truthy if it exists
myThing.property = "some string" if (myThing.property) { // true // do something }It works with everything except of course for falsy values
myThing.number = someNumberThatShouldNotBeEqualToZero if (myThing.number) { // do something very important with that number that should not be equal to zero } // This can fail at anytime without warningSo you’ve got to be extra careful with that logic when you’re dealing with numbers.
I am not saying it’s wrong though. I’m saying it’s often annoying.
ah ok , I think I write this a bit more verbose when using other languages, instead of
if(thing) { stuff; }I do
if(thing != null) { stuff; }so checking for numbers being truthy & existing didn’t seem like an issue
In the case of a non-existing property, the value would be undefined rather than null.
And while == and != exist in JavaScript, most linters will throw an error and require a === and !== instead as they should be avoided.
null == undefined // true null === undefined // falseBesides, null is a perfectly valid value for a property, just as 0. Working with API Platform, I couldn’t tell the number of times I used this kind of statement:
if (property || property === null) { // do some stuff }Probably just as much as
if (property || property === 0) { // do some stuff }
Easiest? More like… The only way.
- Ubiquitous; insane amount of libraries and probably some of the best documentation of any language
- JS lambda function syntax is nice
I am forced to try to get a JS certification.
I am reaching the end of my rope, and starting to think of maybe putting my neck into one.
Isaac Newton said that we see far because we stand on the shoulders of giants.
Javascript is like standing on the shoulders of dwarves with brittle bone disease.
Standing on the shoulder of dwarves hiding deep underground
It leads to typescript
You get surprises from npm
I spent way too long today figuring out why my app was doing something that it’s NOT supposed to do on weekends.
I read Luxon’s docs (pretty cool lib tbh) again and again, and tried everything I could think of to get isWeekend to return a sane result.
Turns out I was pulling a somewhat older version of Luxon, where isWeekend didn’t exist. In any sane language, I expect I’d get a huge warning about a property that doesn’t exist, but alas…
Typescript helps me keep my sanity, but juuuuust barely.
If isWeekend doesn’t exist, then the weekend doesn’t exist, so it’s naturally false.
That’s why JavaScript gets pushed so hard - it’s part of the capitalist agenda to keep us working 7 days a week
That’s fair. Typescript has to cook with the existing js ecosystem.
Weren’t you getting runtime errors for the function not being found?
No, they were probably getting false every time
Falsy* because it was undefined
However, their IDE should have highlighted it as an unknown property. Guess this guy is coding in notepad or vi.
Yep, thanks for correcting me. In fact, if they write something like
if (day.isWeekend) {...}The block will never be executed with the old version of library
Yeah that’s exactly what I think happened to him. He needs a better IDE and/or needs to stop copy/pasting code from stackoverflow or documentation that doesn’t match his library version.
My dude, you need to understand that all that anger and resentment, it is not you. It’s the years of JavaScript poisoning your mind.
In any case, that goes to my point. I would have to be saved by my IDE, when any sane language will blow up in your face as soon as you try to run it.
I don’t know how luxon works, but isWeekend could be a property instead of a function
It is. It also happens to be undefined, and checking that for truth is how I was bitten.
You get suprises from npm
awaitandasync- Is available to be used in website scripting.
- Not quite as full of footguns as PHP (although it is close).
PHP is actually quite footgun free these days.
The part that always gets me is when people choose Js for the backend. Like I get that it’s the default thing that works on the frontend, so there’s some rationale why you might not want to transpile to it from another language. On the backend though, there are so many far better option, why would you willingly go with Js, especially given that you’re now forced to do all your IO async.
I moved from primarily ASP.Net Core backends, which is a hell of a great backend framework btw, to NestJS. Not my choice. I do what the people who sign my paychecks ask for.
I cannot begin to fathom why anyone would willingly choose JavaScript for backend. TypeScript helps a lot but there are still so many drawbacks and poor design decisions that make the developer experience incredibly frustrating. Features that are standard in ASP.Net Core, Django, or other common backend frameworks just don’t exist.
Also, don’t get me started on GraphQL. Sure, it has performance advantages for websites of a certain size and scale. But 99% of the websites out there don’t have the challenges that Facebook has. The added complexity and development cost over REST is just not worth it.
Yeah, gql in particular is a problem looking for a solution in most cases. It makes sense for facebook because they have people building frontend apps for their marketplace, and those apps need all kinds of weird combinations of data. However, this isn’t the situation for most apps where you have a fairly well defined set of calls you’re doing.
Server side rendering looks like it could be useful. I imagine SSR could be used for graceful degradation, so what would normally be a single page application could work without Javascript. Though, I’ve never tried SSR, and nobody seems to care about graceful degradation anymore.
Most pages tend be just documents and fairly simple forms. Making SPAs and then having to worry about SSR is just making a Rube Goldberg machine in most cases. I think something like HTMX is a much better approach in most cases. You keep all your business logic server side, send regular HTML to the client, and you just have a little bit of Js on the frontend that knows how to patch in chunks of HTML in the DOM as needed. Unless you have a highly interactive frontend, this is a much better approach than making a frontend with something like React and adding all the complexity that goes with it.
No one cares about graceful degradation anymore. But you can sell management on SEO. Page performance is a key aspect of search engine rankings and server-side rendered pages will almost always have a much faster initial load than client-side rendered.
Is there a non sexist/queerphobic word for soydevs? Because soydevs are the ones who do that shit.
is there a non sexist/queerphobic meaning for that term? i would assume the bigotry is the whole point.
It has a cup of coffee as logo
That’s Java, not Javascript. Java is to javascript as ham is to hamster.
Or butter to butterfly
Or car to carpet
Or fun to funeral
Moon to moonshine
I want to create a political party in India. I need you as a candidate for next elections.
- Its not java
Which is a blessing for Java.
It’s* not
It is
