you're right in both points technically, but if that means that somehow these things don't make JS "weird" for people to learn/program, then i disagree

> that's a floating point problem. Plenty of languages will have the same issue.

yes, many (most) other languages do have the same floating point issues, but that doesn't make them less weird. JS numbers are IEEE floating point numbers, therefore floating point issues/weirdness are also JS issues/weirdness :)

> Calling these things weird is fair enough but I can't help thinking this is code you'd never actually write outside of the context of a "Look how weird JS is!" post.

the verbatim code snippets in particular, yes, you're completely right. but the underlying problems that these snippets exemplify are still there on actual "real" running code. they just look less suspicious on the surface.

> Just be moderately careful about casting things from one data type to another and all these problems go away.

true. but still, these things can happen, and when they happen, they tend to sneakily manifest as weird UI bugs, like rendering "NaN" or "undefined" on the screen (we have all seen those... there's plenty of meme images about them too), instead of noisily breaking with an exception, which is way more noticeable and actionable for us programmers when doing introducing these bugs in the first place hehe.

it's true that they are not the most common kind of bugs, i'll give you that, but when they happen, they can be incredibly frustrating in my experience, because you may only realize after they have been affecting user for a looong time (maybe years), but you just didn't know because JS decided it was a good idea to carry on after one of these nonsense operations like adding an array to a number, giving you nonsense results instead of useful (runtime) type errors.

story time!

i remember an ugly case of this which involved some search filters on a big-ish system. the JS code was quite generic in how it handled filters, and looked fine. for some time, all filters were single-value, as simple strings, but at some point the system started handling multi-value filters, which were encoded as arrays of strings. well, the programmers who implemented the UI for multi-valued filters just tried sending array of strings as filters to the existing filtering system, and it seemed to work correctly in the results it yielded, so they assumed the code was prepared for that too (it looked generic enough), and so they shipped the feature that way.

it was only years later, when i was porting some of that code to typescript, that typescript complained about invalid type operations. i was converting between languages pretty willy-nilly and assuming the existing system worked correctly, so i suspected typescript was being dumb with that type error. but no, it was actually complaining about an actual bug. when passing arrays of strings as filters, the underlying filtering system was at some point coercing those arrays to strings by accident. so ['apples', 'oranges'] became 'apple,oranges'.

the search results were always right when the multi-valued filters had only one value (because ['apples'] coerced to string is 'apples') and kinda right in some naive cases of multi-valued filters (because of how the text search engine worked), which was probably why the original programmers thought it was working correctly and didn't give it much more though or more thorough testing. but the search results were definitely not correct in most non-naive cases of multi-valued filters.

so our users had been affected by this bug of multi-value search filters basically not working for years, and we only discovered it by accident when porting some of the JS code to typescript because typescript was kind enough to tell us about this nonsense operation statically, without having to even run the code. i wish that JS were also kind enough to complain about these nonsense operations, albeit at runtime. it would have made this problem obvious from the get go, and would have prevented the original programmers from shipping a broken feature to thousands of users.

plot twist: although the story may make it seem that i was the competent programmer that figured it all out when porting the code to typescript, in reality "the original programmers" also included me (probably, i don't remember really), just some time before the typescript port :/