@maxxinmaze4501
Non-JS developers: Finally a video for me.. JS developers: Finally a video for me..
@gibbyfromicarlybestshow986
The worst thing about JavaScript is being a tutor trying to explain "that's not how it should work, and you shouldn't do that, but yes, it does work"
@migvelv
1:18 I love how he couldn’t be bothered to say “object” twice so he copied the audio, following the DRY principle
@BrianOSheaPlus
I love how JavaScript worked around the weird equality test issues by adding more equality operators like === (in other words, no I mean it, is it really really equal?)
@panlis6243
"Completely detatched from reality" is the most accurate description of js type system that I've ever heard
@pesterenan
"Puts food on my family" Well, considering JS type conversion, a family and a table are the same thing for JS, so this is acceptable. xD
@rea9lizer
Un popular opinion: The only problem with TypeScript is that it's based on JavaScript
@JettoDz
"Programming in JS is like looking both ways to cross the street, and then getting hit by an airplane" - Don't know by who
@__.-__.
Please make Python for the Haters 🥺🥺🥺
@Xylight
There was Atwood's law, now here's my law: "Everybody who can code in JavaScript, suffers with JavaScript"
@window.location
Non-JS devs: hates JS. JS devs: hates JS every moment.
@MxSlfDstrct
I love that the only good thing he has to say about JS is that he gets paid good money to write it
@Radian628
Fun fact: {} + [] is 0 because, in this case, {} is not an object. Rather, it's an anonymous block scope. If you're confused, it's equivalent to the expression "if (true) {} + []". "if (true) {}" isn't a piece of data--- it's a statement. The + operator in this case is unary, meaning that [] is its only operand. To demonstrate this, you could type out "+ []" and get the same result. Unary + simply casts its operand to a number. [] casts to 0. And hence, the result is 0.
@sharpfang
Not even a mention that every implementation of Javascript is different and incompatible with other implementations. Theoretically same code should work on any web browser, or other webpage rendering device. In practice you write miles of code to test for presence of features, and work around their absence, and in the end it still fails on a number of devices where the test itself triggers a runtime error.
@BoloH.
"Used exclusively to build things it's not supposed to" few hours earlier I was working on a TS/JS project and had this exact thought.
@crappycoder
Best 100 seconds to send to someone planning to try and be a javascript dev. From: A javascript dev.
@mtyrio
1:18 thumbs up for sound effect on object Object
@vijaysamant2864
For the nerds, 0:12 says 'hi mom"
@cIappo896
Javascript got me into a project that is a part LinkedIn, part Facebook, part Upwork, part Jira and part Medium. The deadline is January 2023, and there's 3 FE devs, including me. I'm the most senior with 3 years. Our backend isn't done yet.
@Virbox