Just comment out the window until it is fixed. Either way it isn’t dangerous as long as you surround it with try/catch.
But I don’t know exactly about that catch part if something happens a few miles above.
I miss that game. Not much tickles the same creativity and playfulness that I’ve tried since then. I used to spend hours in the level creator doing dumb stuff.
Yeah, it’s true. I knew all the other ones, had to put that one in the dev tools console to believe it. I was just happy to know === continues to be sane in that comparison.
That would be weird if a string containing a space wasn't equal to 0 " " == 0, but that's not the case in JS. If you think that "" and " " being equal to 0 is weird then I agree, but since they are, you should expect "t" and "n" to equal 0 too.
The == operator in JS will try to cast the things being compared and do all kinds of ‘smart’ assumptions about what equality means. This is why everyone uses === instead…
If " " wasn't equal to 0, it wouldn't make sense, but since a string containing a space equals 0, you'd expect the same to apply to a string containing a tab or a newline. (or at least I'd expect that)
I admit I have never dabbled in javascript, despite being a proficient programmer. I now dread to ask... would any string that contains only whitespace == 0? " \t\n \t " for example?
Yes, it would. Just like a string of spaces " " == 0, but it isn't that bad; === is Javascript's version of == in other languages, and, thus, you should be using it if you don't want that wonkiness.
== is just for convenience, like when you want to make sure that the user didn't leave the form empty and the button shouldn't be greyed out, and other UI stuff. Without these kinds of features JS wouldn't be used in so many toolkits.
Ok, I always mistakenly assumed === was the identity operator in JS, too. TIL, thanks! As much as we like to poke fun at JS, every time I’m taught the rationale behind some aspect of it, I find it redeeming and even a little endearing.
The explanation given to you makes it sound like == was deliberately designed to be a more convenient version of ===, but what actually happened was that == used to be the only equality operator in JavaScript, which meant that if you didn’t want it’s auto-coercing behavior then you needed to go out of your way to add additional type checks yourself. Because this was obviously a tremendously inconvenient state of affairs, the === operator was introduced later so that you could test for equality without having to worry about JavaScript doing something clever underneath the hood that you weren’t expecting.
The explanation given to you makes it sound like == was deliberately designed to be a more convenient version of ===
I mean technically == was deliberately designed to be a more convenient version of other languages’ == operator… Just specifically more convenient for light UI stuff since that was all JavaScript was supposed to be used for at the time (or all they thought it would be used for).
But give programmers a way to write and execute a small script and someone will eventually use that to try and write an emulator that emulates the computer it’s running on, so the web evolved into more complicated applications, and then that convenience turned out to be wildly inconvenient, not to mention horribly unexpected for programmers coming from other languages, so then they added the triple equality to match other languages.
You have to remember that the underlying principle of JavaScript seemed to be “never throw an error”, even if what it’s being told to do is weapons grade bollocks.
Always on hjkl to move, and always ready to insert (i), append (a) or insert before (O) or after (o) line and fast escape with esc.
For search and rescue missions usually use the /.
They need a vim drill before combat.
The point would be to be outside. Were traveling right now and I can’t find the link but if you search for wolphrams life hacks type of thing there’s an article he wrote about it which was a fascinating read.
Personally I have an elliptical at home with a laptop stand on it and I love it.
After a extremely long week, I sometimes participate in open source. I have to deal with malicious commits. I have to follow up on issues from misguided individuals who are actually looking for tech support. I have to guide new contributors to how this massive repo works and to submit tests. I have to negotiate with the core team and these convos can often last months/years.
And contributing to open-source is one of the few things that give me pleasure, even if it’s a extremely thankless job.
But I’m tired man.
I’m not dealing with low-quality memers who are providing zero value. Nor should we encourage it.
I do FOSS as well, but I’d rather people have fun punting the stalebot than just keep repeating “this issue still exists”. I will probably get a chuckle out of it.
Yeah, I’m chalking that up to Python’s untypedness. I was going to write “integers”, but technically that function takes a “num”, whatever that is.
For all we know, it could be a string, asking ChatGPT to hack the government. Is that even? Probably no. Or None. Or T-Rex. Without reading the entire function, we don’t know that it’s not returning T-Rex.
Thankfully, it doesn’t matter. Just stick the result into an if-else, then False and None will land you in the else-branch. And both True and our Truthiness-Rex will land you in the if-branch. Just as Guido intended.
There’s something really depressing about an AI telling a suicidal person they’re not alone and referring them to the vague notion of “national resources” or “a helpline”
programmer_humor
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.