this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
1022 points (98.6% liked)

Programmer Humor

23861 readers
2956 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
Feyter@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
pylapp@programming.dev
1022
JavaScript (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 days ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
159 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Also, you contradicted yourself just then and there. Not a single of your examples does string concatenation for these types. It's only JS

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
  • In https://lemm.ee/comment/20947041 they claimed "implicit type coercion" and showed many examples; they did NOT claim "string concatenation".
  • However, that was in reply to https://lemmy.world/comment/17473361 which was talking about "implicit conversion to string" which is a specific type of "implicit type coercion"; NONE of the examples given involved a conversion to string.
  • But also, that was in reply to https://lemm.ee/comment/20939144 which only mentions "implicit type coercion" in general.

So, I think probably everyone in the thread is "correct", but you are actually talking past one another.

I think the JS behavior is a bad design choice, but it is well documented and consistent across implementations.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago

Read the thread again, it seems you slipped somewhere. This was all about the claim that implicit conversion to string somehow could make sense.