> Exactly Brendan, I could not agree more and this is my No. 1 pitfall about
> JS: developers often not doing real work complaining about stuff that
> developers doing real work don't even care about or never ever had to worry
> about.
I don’t follow. Who are these people not doing “real work”? And I don’t think
discussing the language qualifies as complaining.
> In any case they can learn and understand the feature/problem using the
> feature when needed, avoiding its weakness when necessary.
>
> About falsy and truthy, null and undefined, who cares ... seriously, and to
> be honest, that's not a pitfall, is rather a feature when needed as it is for
> all other scripting languages as long as you know what you are doing ... and
> no programming language will save you if you don't know what you are doing
> and it's your duty, as developer, to understand the language you are using if
> that's your job.
“Warts” is probably a better term than “pitfalls”.
> Again, about falsy ... if I see a glass empty, it does not mean I used a
> microscope to understand no water is left in the whole glass surface ... I
> just consider that empty and I add water on top.
>
> Engineers have the tendency to over complicate even simple tasks as the one
> I've just described ... what is the benefit? What is the result? That the day
> falsy values in JS will disappear libraries authors will implement an
> isFalsy(value) function/method and use it 90% of the time regretting the
> trick with == disappeared ... isn't it ;-)
What is the trick with ==? Note that == does not respect truthiness or
falsiness:
> 2 == true
false
> 2 == false
false
> '2' == true
false
> '2' == false
false
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
