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
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-level Object class with a toString() method, then you’re going to get a toString() method in strings too. You’re going to get a toString() in everything; in JS even functions have a toString() (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 a toString because it’d technically be useless.
Everything that’s an Object is going to either inherit Object.prototype.toString() (mdn) or provide its own implementation. Like I said in another comment, even functions have a toString() because they’re also objects.
A String is an Object, so it’s going to have a toString() method. It doesn’t inherit Object’s implementation, but provides one that’s sort of a no-op / identity function but not quite.
So, the thing is that when you say const someString = "test string", you’re not actually creating a new String object instance and assigning it to someString, you’re creating a string (lowercase s!) primitive and assigning it to someString:
Compare this with creating a new String("bla"):
In Javascript, primitives don’t actually have any properties or methods, so when you call someString.toString() (or call any other method or access any property on someString), what happens is that someString is coerced into a String instance, and then toString() is called on that. Essentially it’s like going new String(someString).toString().
Now, what String.prototype.toString() (mdn) does is it returns the underlying string primitive and not the String instance itself:
Why? Fuckin beats me, I honestly can’t remember what the point of returning the primitive instead of the String instance is because I haven’t been elbow-deep in Javascript in years, but regardless this is what String’s toString() does. Probably has something to do with coercion logic.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
“:-)”.reverse() == “)-:”
Close enough
Then “b” backwards would have to be “d”
"E".reverse() == "∃"You’re no fun
Look closer at the beauty mark, I flipped the emoji
wasn’t it 🙁
.
r
e
v
e
r
s
e
()
Today I found out that this is valid JS:
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
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.deleted by creator
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
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.deleted by creator
Everything that’s an
Objectis going to either inheritObject.prototype.toString()(mdn) or provide its own implementation. Like I said in another comment, even functions have atoString()because they’re also objects.A
Stringis anObject, so it’s going to have atoString()method. It doesn’t inheritObject’s implementation, but provides one that’s sort of a no-op / identity function but not quite.So, the thing is that when you say
const someString = "test string", you’re not actually creating a newStringobject instance and assigning it tosomeString, you’re creating astring(lowercases!) primitive and assigning it tosomeString:Compare this with creating a
new String("bla"):In Javascript, primitives don’t actually have any properties or methods, so when you call
someString.toString()(or call any other method or access any property onsomeString), what happens is thatsomeStringis coerced into aStringinstance, and thentoString()is called on that. Essentially it’s like goingnew String(someString).toString().Now, what
String.prototype.toString()(mdn) does is it returns the underlyingstringprimitive and not theStringinstance itself:Why? Fuckin beats me, I honestly can’t remember what the point of returning the primitive instead of the
Stringinstance is because I haven’t been elbow-deep in Javascript in years, but regardless this is whatString’stoString()does. Probably has something to do with coercion logic.deleted by creator
but
"🙂".reverse() == "🙃"Be the operator overload you wish to see in the world
JavaScript taking notes
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 inverseIt’s a just a joke, but I feel like that actually says something pretty profound about duck typing, and how computable it actually is.
Best I can do is
returns
"\ude42🙁"