this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
384 points (98.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

23011 readers
1638 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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 18 points 9 hours ago

Good old JS, because exceptions are a sin.

[–] miellaby@jlai.lu 13 points 8 hours ago

I've seen code in my workplace using parseInt to round JS Number. Made me cringe coming from system programing but I didn't see the danger.

It's sad the only way to prevent such a bad code in production is to use transpilers.

[–] glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz 10 points 9 hours ago

looks functional to me. Its a pure function, right?

[–] m_f@discuss.online 197 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

If anyone's wondering why:

>> 0.000005
0.000005
>> 0.0000005
5e-7
[–] towerful@programming.dev 66 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Yup. parseInt is for strings.
Math.floor, Math.ceil, Math.round or Math.trunc are for numeric type "conversions" (cause its still a float)

[–] mmddmm@lemm.ee 36 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (3 children)

Nah, it's stupid either way.

"5e-7" is not an int to be parsed. Neither is "0.5".

[–] LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee 51 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (5 children)

People give JS a lot of shit. And I do too. But it's meant to continue running and not fail like C code would. It's meant to basically go "yeah, sure I'll fuck with that" and keep trucking.

So you can always make it do stupid shit when you use it a stupid way.

Is this bad? Maybe. Was it the intention of the language? Absolutely.

Typescript fixes a lot of these headaches. But I feel like JS is doing exactly what it was meant to do. Keep trucking even when the programmer asks it to do stupid shit.

If you're using JS and don't understand this then it's your fault and not the languages fault.

Do we all want to live in a world of typedefs as strict as C and have our webpages crash with the slightest unexpected char input? Probably not.

We don't notice all the time JS goes "yeah I can fuck with that" and it works perfectly. We only notice the times it does that and it results in something silly.

TLDR: JS does what it was made to do. And because of that it looks absolutely ridiculous sometimes.

[–] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 5 points 3 hours ago

The REAL problem is that the industry collectively uses JS almost exclusively for shit it was never meant to do. Like you say, it's intended for it to not throw errors and kill your whole web page, because it was only ever intended to be used for minor scripts inside mostly-static HTML and CSS web pages. Then we all turned it into the most-popular language in the world for building GUI applications.

[–] mmddmm@lemm.ee 7 points 8 hours ago

It’s meant to basically go “yeah, sure I’ll fuck with that” and keep trucking.

Yet, it lives in an insulated environment, with plenty of infrastructure to make sure errors do not propagate, with a standard error handling functionality on the spotlight with specialized syntax, and with plenty of situations where it just drops the ball and throws an error.

Nope, not falling for the gaslight. It's a stupid feature that's there because the language was created during a week and the author was trying to juggle the requirement of a rigid and typed semantics that looked like Java with his desire to make a flexible single-typed language that looks like Lisp.

And nobody fixed it, decades later, because everybody keeps repeating your line that the interpreter must always keep on.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 points 9 hours ago

My main issue with JS is you can use it wrong, and it pretends to work, and often looks like it works.

But then shits its pants explosively the second you fall outside that.

[–] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 34 points 14 hours ago

People forget that crashes are a debugging tool indicating an error. Silent errors can be much more dangerous. C and C++ in particular need to be careful not to overwrite random memory for example.

Yes the consequences for JS failures are less severe and so JS can get away with it, but a crash is a way to know your program isn't doing what you thought it was, properly.

It just so happens that JS is used in contexts where nobody really cares, and errors aren't a big deal, cheap and fast wins.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 4 points 13 hours ago

That's not why JS is a big pile of crap. It's because the language was not thought through at the beginning (I don't blame the inventors for that) and because of the web it spread like wildfire and only backwards compatible changes could be made. Even if will all your points in mind the language could be way nicer. My guess is that once wasm/wasi is integrated enough to run websites without JS (dom access, etc.) JS will be like Fortran, Cobol and Telefax - not going away any time soon, but practically obsolete.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 5 points 14 hours ago

Javascript: "They're the same thing"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

What language is that so I can avoid it.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 37 points 12 hours ago

lol it’s js of course

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 points 9 hours ago

We all know what it is.

[–] heavy@sh.itjust.works 41 points 14 hours ago (5 children)

I know this is for fun, but as general advice to the homies, if a language or system is doing something you didn't expect, make sure to look at the documentation

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/parseInt

This will save a lot of time and headaches

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 2 points 2 hours ago

oh god the reason is even stupider then I expected

Because large numbers use the e character in their string representation (e.g., 6.022e23 for 6.022 × 1023), using parseInt to truncate numbers will produce unexpected results when used on very large or very small numbers. parseInt should not be used as a substitute for Math.trunc().

[–] tauonite@lemmy.world 16 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Holy fuck that is long. When the documentation for the integer parsing function is 10 pages long, there's something seriously wrong with the language

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Is it? I've seen longer articles for C# and not as many complaints about it.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 4 points 5 hours ago

Probably not an article about integer parsing, though. If the docs are that long, then because Microsoft does have a tendency to be overly verbose for things they think you need, just to have no docs for the stuff you actually need.

For reference here's the relevant rust docs.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 12 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment

...and of course JS made it into the examples, how could it not:

A programming language's standard library usually provides a function similar to the pseudocode ParseInteger(string, radix), which creates a machine-readable integer from a string of human-readable digits. The radix conventionally defaults to 10, meaning the string is interpreted as decimal (base 10). This function usually supports other bases, like binary (base 2) and octal (base 8), but only when they are specified explicitly. In a departure from this convention, JavaScript originally defaulted to base 8 for strings beginning with "0", causing developer confusion and software bugs. This was discouraged in ECMAScript 3 and dropped in ECMAScript 5.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Okay but this documentation is obviously wrong from the first sentence

The parseInt() function parses a string argument and returns an integer of the specified radix

Integers don't have radices. It should read:

The parseInt() function parses a string argument representing an integer of the specified radix and returns that integer.

~~Either way, I still don't understand the behaviour in the image.~~ nvm, thanks m_f@discuss.online

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 8 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

I'd advise to always look into the corresponding documentation before using something from any library.

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 hours ago

But I'm too busy being confused by the behaviors of libraries I previously didn't read the documentation for, to read the documentation for every new library I adopt.

(This is sarcasm...mostly.)

[–] bisserkr@lemmy.world 13 points 11 hours ago

I'll go with 5 hours of debugging, thank you very much!

[–] danda@lemmy.zip 94 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

It's because parseInt is expecting a string, so the decimal gets converted to a string, and 0.0000005.toString() returns 5e-7.

[–] KindaABigDyl@programming.dev 37 points 16 hours ago (1 children)
[–] AnotherPenguin@programming.dev 2 points 4 hours ago

More like javascript L, even python would throw a TypeError for this example.

[–] spizzat2@lemm.ee 27 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

And to further expand on that, if you do pass in a ~~sting~~ string, it handles it correctly.

> parseInt('0.0000005')

0
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 15 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

What if I pass in a Sterwart Copeland?

[–] xtools@programming.dev 3 points 8 hours ago

or a Honda civic

[–] spizzat2@lemm.ee 7 points 15 hours ago

😆 I'll be watching you...

[–] FMT99@lemmy.world 49 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Another classic javascript wat

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

Classic people who don't know how to code wat. Passing a number in place of a string argument because they don't know what they're doing.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 33 points 15 hours ago (10 children)

Javascript could throw an error to alert you that the input is supposed to be a string, like most languages would do.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Traister101@lemmy.today 20 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

It's not a string argument though, it's JS. You can argue it's expected to be a string but like the rest of JS all you can know from the signature alone is that it takes an object. Hopefully your little ducky quacks the right way!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] qqq@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Could be a variable from somewhere else in the code. It should throw type error of some sort if it's not going to handle a float correctly

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Agreed, functions in general should do this, and some do. But it should probably be automatic. And the variable argument is a good one, a very good argument for TypeScript. ❤️

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] enemenemu@lemm.ee 10 points 17 hours ago

Great feature

load more comments
view more: next ›