- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
It only took one question for me to start wanting to flip tables.
Alright, enough making fun of languages that suck…let’s talk about JavaScript.
Except for some reason “2” is interpreted as a month, and the year is set to 2001.
Aight I’m out
Ha this is even worse than I could have imagined!
I scored 10/28 on https://jsdate.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
Can we start a new web with a better language/platform already?
Google tried to do that with Dart, and failed. In fairness Dart 1 was much worse than Dart 2… So maybe that was a good thing because there’s no way they’d have been able to improve Dart as much as they have if it was part of the web.
For dates there finally is something better anyway: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Temporal
There’s wasm if you need to target browsers.
Yes and no. Wasm has no “standard library” so if you wanted to use Dates, your wasm would need to have its own implemation bundled for when the user visits the page. Ditto for everything else including string support! As you can imagine having to ship all this basic functionality can bloat the wasm and slow page loads.
You also can’t fully escape JS, as the only way wasm can interact with the page & browser are through the JS functions you write and make available to your wasm. I suppose you could take advantage of this to not have to ship your own standard library & use the JS Date implementation, but at that point why not just use JS?
Wasm has strengths but it’s not suitable for replacing JS for everyday websites.
Why? Why not improve JS (e.g. with Temporal), especially given how excellent Typescript is?
I wouldn’t call typescript excellent, if I did it would be on a very low standard.
It unquestionably is excellent. Can you name another language in common use with a type system that’s close to the expressiveness of Typescript?
JS is a lost cause.
How? It’s easy not to run into the common issues by using TS. What’s so bad about it that we should throw away the existing ecosystem?
Please give arguments instead of platitudes.
You don’t need to use TS to avoid common issues. If you add an empty object to an empty array and expect a meaningful result, the problem sits in front of the keyboard.
Sure, discipline can prevent some errors. But it’s always possible to run into wrong type assumptions, and I’d say type coercion and null/undefined access make up a fairly large percentage of non-logic errors. You can entirely prevent those using Typescript, which is why it’s so useful.
Static type analysis is always a good idea if you’re writing more than a couple lines. IMO Python is the worst offender with its
kwargsetc. - discoverability and testability is just so bad if you’re following common Python idioms.
If you’re not very familiar with JS, watch the Wat talk before taking the quiz to know what to expect from this wonderful language.
And then promptly get yourself familiar with how the language actually works. https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS
People who complain about JS often assume it has features of other languages and fail to realize it has its own architecture and winding history.
Nobody understands JavaScript. It’s the quantum mechanics of the software world.
I scored 13/28 on https://jsdate.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
Oof. I’ve been a JS dev since 1998.
The quirks in this quiz aren’t even universal, and vary based on which browser you’re using. See the table at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Date/parse#non-standard_date_strings
Also I got 13/28 😑
I got 10/28, but I was crying after the 7th question
12/28
Surprised that I got this score when I only know python
9/28. WTF’ing through 90% of the questions.
This is just a good reminder of human nature to make bad choices (using JS) and stick with them forever.
7/28. Of course no one would ever do most of those things, they are interesting to think about but with little practical use.
