- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
You must log in or register to comment.
[🌽].pop() == 🍿"🚴".push() = "🚲🤸"
“:-)”.reverse() == “)-:”
Close enough
Best I can do is
"\ude41🙂".split("").reverse().join("")returns
"\ude42🙁"Be the operator overload you wish to see in the world
"☹️".reverse() == "☹️"You’re no fun
but
"🙂".reverse() == "🙃"JavaScript taking notes
"🐈".concat() = "😼"deleted by creator
Then “b” backwards would have to be “d”
"E".reverse() == "∃"
Today I found out that this is valid JS:
const someString = "test string"; console.log(someString.toString());[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
I dint know many OO languages that don’t have a useless toString on string types
Okay, fair enough. Guess I never found about it because I never had to do it… JS also allows for
"test string".toString()directly, not sure how it goes in other languages.It’s also incredibly useful as a failsafe in a helper method where you need the argument to be a string but someone might pass in something that is sort of a string. Lets you be a little more flexible in how your method gets called
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
I dint know many OO languages that don’t have a useless toString on string types.
Well, that’s just going to be one of those “it is what it is” things in an OO language if your base class has a
toString()-equivalent. Sure, it’s probably useless for a string, but if everything’s an object and inherits from some top-levelObjectclass with atoString()method, then you’re going to get atoString()method in strings too. You’re going to get atoString()in everything; in JS even functions have atoString()(the output of which depends on the implementation):
In a dynamically typed language, if you know that everything can be turned into a string with
toString()(or the like), then you can just call that method on any value you have and not have to worry about whether it’ll hurl at runtime because eg.Strings don’t have atoStringbecause it’d technically be useless.[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
You could implement that on a chat, but I wouldn’t do that on a string
Where’s your sense of adventure?!
Also, it should turn an error into an empty but successful call. /s
Calling
reverse()on a function should return its inverseisprime.reverse(True) // outputs 19 billion prime numbers. Checkmate, atheists.
