• TonyTonyChopper
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    300,000 every week… is this really a feature not built into Java Script?

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        10 months ago
        (+x) % 2 == 0
        

        If you forget for a second it’s Javascript, the language will turn back and bite you.

          • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

          • marcos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            10 months ago

            This evaluates to NaN for some reason:

            '10' % 0
            

            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.

            • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              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

    • Madlaine@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.