Great feature
Another classic javascript wat
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.
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
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. ❤️
Javascript could throw an error to alert you that the input is supposed to be a string, like most languages would do.
Theoretically, Javascript is an untyped language, so there aren’t supposed to really be static types. Giving type errors in this situation would be against design.
Maybe the design is bad, then.
Lol you’ll get no argument from me. It’s not my favorite language.
Theoretically, Javascript is an untyped language…
Function only handles string arguments correctly. Wat.
But you’re calling a function specifically made for passing a string to an int… 😆 There’s gotta be some common sense somewhere here, guys.
Still, it’s a very good point. JS should do this.
I would suspect one reason it doesn’t do this is to be backwards compatible.
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
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.
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.onlineHoly fuck that is long. When the documentation for the integer parsing function is 10 pages long, there’s something seriously wrong with the language
Is it? I’ve seen longer articles for C# and not as many complaints about it.
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.
oh god the reason is even stupider then I expected
Because large numbers use the
echaracter in their string representation (e.g.,6.022e23for 6.022 × 1023), usingparseIntto truncate numbers will produce unexpected results when used on very large or very small numbers.parseIntshould not be used as a substitute forMath.trunc().
If(x-parseInt(x)<0){ y=0;} Else{ y=parseInt(x)!}