Programmer Humor

19213 readers

328 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

Keep content in english
No advertisements
Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Feyter@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

BurningTurtle@programming.dev

727

JavaScript (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 months ago by sjmarf@sh.itjust.works to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

86 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The libraries underneath will still allow nonsense at runtime

Only if you use a badly written library. Most libraries have types provided by DefinitelyTyped. Those who don’t are (in my experience) so tiny that you probably aren’t using them; or, if you really wanted, can check yourself.

In the end, if you encounter a bug, it’ still 99% of the time not a library’s fault, even if it’s written in plain JS.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Like I said to the other person, those are just types over top of JavaScript that can still fail if/when coercion happens under the hood.

I don't even know how to search it now, but a specific example came up on here of a time when JavaScript libraries will cause problems, and problems you can't even see very well if you're expecting it to act strictly-typed.