JS is a language where [1,2,11].sort() returns [1,11,2].
And if you use a variable instead of a bare array, half the functions are side-effectful, as determined by coin toss.
And if you try declaring that variable with new Array(3).map() then it will ignore all 3 indices, because undefined is real enough to be enumerated, but not real enough to be iterated, because, and I cannot overstress the importance of this principle in Javascript, go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself is why.
Array(3) doesn’t create [undefined, undefined, undefined, ]; it creates [/* hole */, /* hole */, /* hole */, ]. The holes don’t set any property on the array whatsoever, so they are skipped when iterating. How this makes sense, I can’t tell you.
the is_even package does not provide much worth indeed because it simply negates is_odd and thereby all its benefit.
It’s dependency is_odd on the other hand provides at least some additional checks (it also checks if the value is a valid integer below the max int value)
And while I would indeed see uses for such methods (especially with the other checks, no simple oneliners) in some cases, especially in testing: This is stuff you write yourself, throw it in a e.g. NumberUtils class and everything is fine. You do never depend on an external library for that. The benefit (not spending a few seconds to write it) does not outweigh any of the drawbacks that come with external libraries.
better to go that way than this (note the weekly downloads)
The best part is the dependency on the function is_odd.
Which itself has a dependency of the function
is_number.I can’t
Can’t even or can’t odd? If only there was a way to find out =/
The efficient use of memory is an efficient use of memory.
dear Lord lmfao
That is one deep rabbit hole.
If I was a JS programmer, I’d just write a bash script to download it every week for fun.
300,000 every week… is this really a feature not built into Java Script?
x % 2 == 0
If you forget for a second it’s Javascript, the language will turn back and bite you.
deleted by creator
I am not good friends with js, what did I miss?
JS is a language where
[1,2,11].sort()returns[1,11,2].And if you use a variable instead of a bare array, half the functions are side-effectful, as determined by coin toss.
And if you try declaring that variable with
new Array(3).map()then it will ignore all 3 indices, becauseundefinedis real enough to be enumerated, but not real enough to be iterated, because, and I cannot overstress the importance of this principle in Javascript, go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself is why.Array(3)doesn’t create[undefined, undefined, undefined, ]; it creates[/* hole */, /* hole */, /* hole */, ]. The holes don’t set any property on the array whatsoever, so they are skipped when iterating. How this makes sense, I can’t tell you.Yet the array contains exactly three nothings.
It’s like a zen koan.
Time is a flat circle
deleted by creator
We wrote it wrong on purpose, as a joke.
The Wimp Lo doctrine is a valid theory for why JS is Like That.
If there’s two ways to do something, JS picks all three.
This evaluates to NaN for some reason:
Since JS doesn’t really differentiate strings from numbers, except on the places it does, it makes sense to make sure you are working with numbers.
Oh right that. I guess I was visualizing a scenario where you already checked for it being a number, such as a Number.isInteger(x)
also, that suprises me a lot, you’d think this is one of the places where it treats stuff as numbers
Not a JS dev either but
===.Not really sure what the
(+x)is aboutthe remainder operator should return a number or a NaN right? do we actually need the triple here?
Not really. But with JS it’s better safe than sorry.
The GP’s addition is unnecessary, but I fully support anyone that decides to do it.
point taken!
what does the +x do.
It makes sure
xis a number.what a wonderful and beautiful language. i’m so glad i asked
And so wonderfully similar to the way that symbol is used in other languages as well. Gosh darn it I love JavaScript
the is_even package does not provide much worth indeed because it simply negates is_odd and thereby all its benefit.
It’s dependency is_odd on the other hand provides at least some additional checks (it also checks if the value is a valid integer below the max int value)
And while I would indeed see uses for such methods (especially with the other checks, no simple oneliners) in some cases, especially in testing: This is stuff you write yourself, throw it in a e.g. NumberUtils class and everything is fine. You do never depend on an external library for that. The benefit (not spending a few seconds to write it) does not outweigh any of the drawbacks that come with external libraries.
Lmao
deleted by creator
True