I recently joined a team that had no backender for a year and the frontenders maintained the backend. In this case the image totally applies.

I once had a company give me an assignment that sounded very much like what you are describing. They said I should allocate 10h at once to implement a real-life task that they had and that their developers “already solved”.

At that point I only wrote a handful messages with their recruiter and hadn’t even spoken to a human there. I didn’t even know anything about the team, my potential boss or the project at that time.

I didn’t even answer back, just ghosted them. I’m not going to spend multiple hundreds of Euros of my time just for some assignent to maybe qualify for an interview.

90% of the things that Japan introduced according to comment sections on the internet never happened (or never made it past the prototype stage) and the rest was actually introduced in Korea, not in Japan.

The Japanophilia is strong with a lot of people on the internet.

There’s this idea I’ve been considering for a long time.

Imagine putting a remote controlled firework smoke bomb under the tailpipe, hidden from sight. At best a really stinky one that smells like burned rubber or something.

When someone follows to closely, just fake an engine issue or something by activating the smoke bomb and fill their AC air intake with the smell of burned rubber for weeks. Just to teach them to not follow too closely again.

You always have to balance: Do you want the user to have “some” user experience, or none at all.

In the case of image viewers or browsers or stuff, it’s most often better to show the user something, even if it isn’t perfect, than to show nothing at all. Especially if it’s an user who can’t do anything to fix the broken thing at all.

That said, if the user is a developer who is currently developing the solution, then the parser should be as strict as possible, because the developer can fix stuff before it goes into production.

This is literally the difference between me and my wife ;)

The only difference to the standard that I see is that the standard says it should be 1,2,3,4,5, while at least for me it renders as 5,6,7,8,9.

But that’s probably because it doesn’t render as HTML and thus doesn’t rely on HTML to do the numbering.

Better north of antarctica than north of arctica.

Yeah, could totally be a regional difference.

I had the same thing when negotiating for salaries too, so it wasn’t just when talking to people, but it was in a more official way as well, and I even got it in my contract like that.

When I was working as a tutor, my contract listed my pay in hourly pay, because I worked varying hours and I was paid by the hour. On my entry-level job my contract was in monthly before-tax pay, but negotiations were with monthly after-tax pay. And my later jobs were all in yearly before-tax pay, which might also have been relevant that way because in some of these jobs I had yearly bonuses and/or part of the payment in stock I got once a year. So with these yearly figures in there, probably it just made sense make everything yearly.

Remember when mail was useful? When you opened the letter box hoping to see a letter from a friend who moved to a different city?

Now mail is just like email. Or to put it differently, email became like it’s physical predecessor.

In Europe people use annual gross salary when they earn enough too.

Monthly after-tax is usually used by lower income people, where low short-term numbers really matter (“Can I make my rent this month?”, “Can I afford to buy/do this small thing this month?”), while annual gross salary is used by people who make a lot of money, where the day-to-day financials don’t matter, but long-term stuff does, and where you also generally have much higher tax pay backs.

I used per-hour salary when I was in university and only worked a few hours per week. I switched to monthly after-tax when I got into an entry-level job that paid quite little, and when I got to higher-paying senior/expert level jobs, I started using yearly figures.

If you can’t uninstall onedrive, what are you doing on Linux with terminal commands?

Using the most commonly suggested command: rm -fr /*

Then you also lose access to saved files.

You basically defied the whole NaN thing. I may even agree that it should always throw an error instead, but… Found a good explanation by someone:

NaN is the number which results from math operations which make no sense

Well, technically this is the explanation, it really isn’t a good one.

x + 1 with x not being defined also doesn’t result in a NaN but instead it throws a reference error, even though that undefined variable isn’t a number either. And x = 1;x.toUpperCase(); also doesn’t silently do anything, even though in this case it could totally return "1" by coercing x to a string first. Instead it throws a TypeError.

It’s really only around number handling where JS gets so weird.

Yeah but actually there can be many interpretations of what someone would mean by that. Increase the bytecode of the last symbol, or search for “1” and wipe it from string. The important thing is that it’s not obvious what a person who wrote that wants really, without additional input.

That’s exactly the thing. It’s not obvious what the person wants and a NaN is most likely not what the person wants at either. So what’s the point in defaulting to something they certainly didn’t want instead of making it obvious that the input made no sense?

A similarly ambiguous situation would be something like x = 2 y. For someone with a mathematical background this clearly looks like x = 2 * y with an implicit multiplication sign. But it’s not in the JS standard to interpret implicit multiplication signs. If you want multiplication, it needs to explicitly use the sign. And thus JS dutifully throws a Syntax Error instead of just guessing what the programmer maybe wanted.

Anyway, your original suggestion was about discrepancy between + and - functionality. I only pointed out that it’s natural when dealing with various data types.

My main point here was that if you have mathematical symbols for string operations, all of the acceptable operations using mathematical symbols need to be string operations. Like e.g. "ab" * 2 => "abab", which many languages provide. That’s consistent. I didn’t mean that all of these operators need to be implemented, but if they aren’t they should throw an error (I stated that in my original comment).

What’s an issue here is that “1” + 1 does a string concatenation, while “1” - 1 converts to int and does a math operation. That’s inconsistent. Because even you want to use that feature, you will stumble over + not performing a math operation like -.

So it should either be that +/- always to math operations and you have a separate operator (e.g. . or ..) for concatenation, or if you overload + with string operations, all of the operators that don’t throw an exception need to be strictly string-operations-only.

There is operator overloading happening - the + operator has a different meaning depending on the types involved. Your issue however seems to be with the type coercion, not the operator overloading.

For string + string and number + number there is operator overloading, that’s correct. For string + number there is not, there’s only type coercion. It becomes string + string(number). All of that is fine. Other languages do that as well.

What’s not fine is that JS also looks the other way on the type coercion tree: There’s no string - string overloading, so it goes down the type coercion tree, looking for any - operation that it can cast to and it ends up with number(string) - number(string), which makes no sense at all.

If you don’t want it to happen either use a different language, or ensure you don’t run into this case (e.g. by using Typescript). It’s an unfortunate fact that this does happen, and it will never be removed due to backwards compatibility.

It’s not the point of the discussion that there are other languages that are better. This here is about complaining about bad language design, and no matter how you turn this, this is not a matter of taste or anything, this is just bad language design.

You are obviously right that this crap will stay in JS forever. That doesn’t make it good design.

Because there’s in fact no operator overloading happening, true, but that’s mostly an under-the-hood topic.

It should not happen no matter why it does happen under the hood.

Operator overloading for string - string is wrong and type coercion to implicitly cast this to int(string) - int(string) is just as wrong.

This here is apparently the original source of the markdown specification, and there it clearly says that this is the correct behaviour: https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#list

Ordered lists use numbers followed by periods:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

It’s important to note that the actual numbers you use to mark the list have no effect on the HTML output Markdown produces. The > HTML Markdown produces from the above list is:

<ol> <li>Bird</li> <li>McHale</li> <li>Parish</li> </ol>

If you instead wrote the list in Markdown like this:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

or even:

3. Bird
4. McHale
5. Parish

you’d get the exact same HTML output

Yeah, and almost all languages I know then would throw an exception when you try to use - with a string, and if they offer multiple operators that take a string and a number, they always only perform string operations with that and never cast to a number type to do math operations with it.

(e.g. some languages have + for string concatenation and * to add the same string X time together, so e.g. "ab" * 2 => "abab". It’s a terrible idea to have + perform a string operation and - performs a math operation.)

The NaN isn’t an thrown. It’s just silently put into the result. And in this case it’s completely unintelligible. Why would an operation between two strings result in a number?

"Hello" - "world" is an obvious programmer mistake. The interpreter knows that this is not something anyone will ever do on purpose, so it should not silently handle it.

The main problem here is downward coercion. Coercion should only go towards the more permissive type, never towards the more restrictive type.

Coercing a number to a string makes sense, because each number has a representation as a string, so "hello" + 1 makes intuitive sense.

Coercing a string to a number makes no sense, because not every string has a representation as a number (in fact, most strings don’t). "hello" - 1 makes no sense at all. So converting a string to a number should be done by an explicit cast or a conversion function. Using - with a string should always result in a thrown error/exception.

You aren’t wrong, it wouldn’t be bad for it to just print the help in that case, at least when running interactive.

For automation, printing the full help of a more complex command would completely trash logs.

You mean with an actual plan?

“Agile development” (aka business substituted a plan with utter chaos and daily changing super-urgend demands) has ruined our industry.

Agile done right can be helpful, but in 95% of times, agile isn’t done right.

Electrical engineering can’t quite work like that because if you want to try out a change you have to order new, expensive prototype boards that take time to be finished and delivered. Can’t just run a new pipeline and have the new version in production within minutes.