It is true. Math.min() returns positive Infinity when called with no arguments and Math.max() returns Negative Infinity when called with no arguments. Positive Infinity > Negative Infinity.

Math.min() works something like this

def min(numbers):
  r = Infinity
  for n in numbers:
    if n < r:
      r = n
  return r

I'm guessing there's a reason they wanted min() to be able to be called without any arguments but I'm sure it isn't a good one.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So, the language isn't compiled (or wasn't originally) so they couldn't make min() be an error that only a developer saw, it has to be something that the runtime on the end-user system dealt with. So, it had to be assigned some value. Under those restrictions, it is the most mathematically sound value. It makes miniumum-exactly-2(x, min(<...>)) be exactly the same as min(x, <...>), even when the "<...>" has no values.

As a developer, I see a lot of value in static analysis, including refusing to generate output for sufficiently erroneous results of static analysis, so I don't like using JS, and the language that I tinker with will definitely have a separate compilation step and reject the equivalent of min(). But, if I HAD to assign something like that a value, it probably would be a representation of infinity, if we had one (probably will due to IEEE floats).

HTH

[–] hades@lemm.ee 8 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The language not being compiled has nothing to do with error handling. You could have a min function that operates on dynamic arrays (e.g. std::min_element in C++ or min() in Python).

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Not having a separate compilation step absolutely affects error handling. With a compilation step, you can have errors that will only be seen by and must be address by a developer prior to run time. Without one, the run time system, must assign some semantics to the source code, no matter how erroneous it is.

No matter what advisory "signature" you imagine for a function, JS has to assign some run time semantics to that function being called incorrectly. Compiled languages do not have to provide a run time semantics to for signatures that can be statically checked.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 1 points 49 minutes ago

Without one, the run time system, must assign some semantics to the source code, no matter how erroneous it is.

That's just not true; as the comment above points out, Python also has no separate compilation step and yet it did not adopt this philosophy. Interpeted languages were common before JavaScript; in fact, most LISP variants are interpreted, and LISP is older than C.

Moreover, even JavaScript does sometimes throw errors, because sometimes code is simply not valid syntactically, or has no valid semantics even in a language as permissive as JavaScript.

So Eich et al. absolutely could have made more things invalid, despite the risk that end-users would see the resulting error.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 36 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Math.min() == Infinity
Math.max() == -Infinity

Wtf is going on JS...

edit: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Math/min

Its the min value of the input params, or Infinity.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Math.min.length is 2, which weakly signals that it's designed to handle at least two parameters

Why would they even define this value?

Note: I’m not a js dev, do most functions have length?

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I am also not a JS dev, we possibly aren't brain damaged enough to understand the perfection.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Most people don't use JS because they think it's perfect... they use it because it's the language that works on web browsers... or because thier coworkers made something in it... or because the library that does what they want uses it...

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

For such a terrible language, it really has staying power...

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

JS is the machine code of the web. Fewer and fewer people might write it directly, but it will live as long as the web platform does.

[–] bufalo1973@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Until some browser can make pages with Python, maybe.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 8 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I develop with JS? All I can say is I need more brain damage to understand where is out

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 22 hours ago

Just keep developing with it, you'll get CTE soon.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

All functions built with function name(args) { body } syntax have a length based on the form of args. Other ways to create functions might set length (I'm not sure). Most of the functions provided by the runtime environment do have a length, usually based on the number of "required" arguments.

[–] moomoomoo309@programming.dev 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's C, NaN is never equal to itself in floating point, that's not just a JS thing.

[–] entropicdrift 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yep, it's C

[–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 day ago

No, it's JS

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (3 children)

I also am not familiar with javascript anymore....precisely because of this, exact, insane bullshit.

B... and/or C... evaluating as FALSE are the only things that... should even kind of make sense, according to my brain.

Though at this point in my life, I have unironically had a good number of concussions and contusions, so ... well you'd think that would help with JS development.

Javascript is insanity, and I am still convinced it is at least 40% responsible for Notch losing his goddamned mind.

'null' is somehow an object. because fuck you, thats why!

Is... 0 == '' ... is that two single quotes ' ' ?

Or one double quote " ?

If... it is one double quote... that wouldn't even evaluate, as it would just be an empty string without a defined end...

But if it was two single quotes... that would just be a proper empty string... and because of forced type coercion, both 0 and '' are FALSE when compared with ==, but not when compared with ===, because that ignores forced type coercion...

https://www.w3docs.com/snippets/javascript/when-to-use-double-or-single-quotes-in-javascript.html

Oh my fucking god WHY?!

Just fucking use one special character to delimit strings!

Don't have two that don't work together and also behave differently even when you pick just one of them... GraaaghhH!

brb, figuring out where Larry Ellison lives...

[–] jaark@infosec.pub 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

I don't think my sanity can take all of these explanations.

Though I just spotted one that's worse than null being an object ..

typeof NaN
"number"

I mean, come on.. it's even in the fucking name!

Edit - fixed capitalisation in 'NaN'

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 hours ago

Number = IEEE-754 double precision float, which includes NaN, so it makes sense

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 3 points 14 hours ago

Douglas Crockford has a whole chapter of these in his latest book. There's also this classic video.

[–] Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Notch? The guy who codes in java?

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

That's just short for JavaScript, isn't it?

[–] Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 12 hours ago

Java is actually twice faster cause the name is twice shorter

[–] traches@sh.itjust.works 2 points 19 hours ago

It’s pretty easy to avoid all of these, mostly by using ===. Null being an object is annoying and is one of the reasons ‘typeof’ is useless, but there are other ways to accomplish the same thing.

JavaScript has a lot of foot guns, but it’s also used by literally everyone so there is a lot of tooling and practice to help you avoid them.

[–] KindaABigDyl@programming.dev 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Fun fact, even tho B is False, Math.min > Math.max is true

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 17 points 1 day ago

That is not a fun fact. How do I unsubscribe :D

[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago

But B is true