Here's a specific reason devs hate JavaScript!
-
It's not just JS, there's other languages where the compiler just chugs along trying to make sense of whatever code is there. VB isn't much better (although option strict and option explicit help). Or what about C? Ever had a nonsensical (it seems) error 14 lines later than where you made the mistake? And that's supposed to be THE system language on the planet.
-
This is just a tooling problem. When writing Javascript, you always use a linter. (Even when writing Typescript, you can use Tslint) Also: don't use var anymore, use const or let. And use a transpiler if you need to support old IE versions.
Jeroen_R wrote:
Also: don't use var anymore, use const or let. And use a transpiler if you need to support old IE versions.
JavaScript and new rules for a an old JavaScript prototype builder. :sigh: Also, I don't want to support old IE. :laugh:
Dr. McCoy speaking to James Kirk (See Star Trek TOS[^]) (about IE)
It's dead, Jim!
-
A convention in JS (and it is just a convention, I do not know if JSLint checks for it) is to name functions that are used as constructors with names starting with a capital letter and functions not used as constructors with names starting with lowercase letters (or $ or _). So, if you had used that convention, you would have written 'new Room()' and you would have been safe.
jsc42 wrote:
A convention in JS (and it is just a convention, I do not know if JSLint checks for it) is to name functions that are used as constructors with names starting with a capital letter and functions not used as constructors with names starting with lowercase letters
A fantastic convention that is spot on for this problem. I really do try to follow conventions like that too, so I don't shoot myself in the foot, but alas, I am as lazy as anyone else who types code. I'm definitely a slacker. ala Marty McFly and Back To the Future[^] :laugh: It's a great point and I will incorporate that convention into my JS even when I'm typing fast. :thumbsup:
-
Oops... Option Strict is indeed a remnant from my VB days... :-O
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
raddevus wrote:
It's only 1000 lines of code. (That's like 4 printed pages. Not bad.)
Only if you have VERY good eyes, because it would be printed in ... Courier New point 2 ;P I'm guessing you actually mean 20 printed pages in Courier New point 9 (which is also not bad) :-\
V.
V. wrote:
Only if you have VERY good eyes, because it would be printed in ... Courier New point 2
Hahaha! You are right. I was thinking 250 words per page. I'm nuts!! 20 pages!! What's going on around here? Oh man, I got to go back and slim things down. :sigh:
-
raddevus wrote:
new room({location:i})just sends in a json object which is used to initialize the object.‘{location:i}’ is Javascript syntax for defining an object. JSON is a format for persisting Javascript objects as text.
-
A poor craftsman blames his tools. Javascript (or any language) is as good or bad as the developer using it. You can paint yourself in a corner using any language the only difference is the color of the paint! Sorry guys, but tell me that ain't the truth. ;-)
If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur! - Red Adair
ClockMeister wrote:
A poor craftsman blames his tools.
ClockMeister wrote:
Sorry guys, but tell me that ain't the truth.
LIES!! All LIES!! :laugh: Yeah, I totally agree with you actually. However, sometimes certain tools need a spark guard or a wires that are covered with insulator that protects me a bit. Sitting In Tub With Toaster I mean, yes, if I'm sitting in the tub holding a plugged in toaster, then I'm the toast. But if my toaster kills me for touching it while it's toasting that's another thing. :laugh:
-
I'm working on a prototype for a friend. We're attempting to turn a leadership exercise / game into an automated thing. Basically you have 5 people who each take a character type (barbarian, elf, thief, wizard or leader) and attempt to make it through a 36 room dungeon. It's currently played on posterboard with some real tokens so we are keeping it very simple. "I could write that up for you as an HTML5 Canvas game," said I. And so it began. I draw a grid of 6x6 (36 rooms). I put in the obstacles users cannot see. I allow them to move their tokens. Things are going along swimmingly in JavaScript and I'm generating functionality quickly. It's only 1000 lines of code. (That's like 4 printed pages. Not bad.) Suddenly I have this bug. It's on line 238 and tells me "room does not have a constructor" and it only occurs if I move a token and then restart the game. What!?! It looks like the following:
gameVars.allRooms.push(new room({location:i}));
Line 238 has not changed in many iterations (I'm using Git so I can tell).
new room({location:i})just sends in a json object which is used to initialize the object. It's quite simple. But finding the bug is very difficult. After hours of picking it apart line-by-line I find a line of code I suspect that is down in another function and shouldn't affect anything. It's way down on line 756 and the compiler has never said anything about it:function playerMovementHandler(playerTokenIdx){
var output = document.getElementById("output");
var currentPlayer = gameVars.allPlayers[playerTokenIdx];
room = hitTestRoom(currentPlayer,gameVars.allRooms);Do you see that? I accidentally didn't type
var. Sure it seems obvious now. If I had named that room variable anything else (different from the name of the function/class) it wouldn't have ever hurt me either. But, but, but... JavaScript compiler why couldn't you have mentioned it? Maybe if I'd had strict enabled or something. It's me shooting myself in the foot, I know. Here's The Terrible Explanation But the deal is that in this case the JavaScript compiler was redefining my room class (which are functions in JavaScript) using thehitTestRoom()function instead of just calling thehitTestRoom()function and returning the room object. So, when I would restart the game after moving a game token the code would return to the top with the room class redefined anraddevus, thank you for sharing your story! This is exemplary case why JS is a time bomb, not a language! JS made for children, meaning when child say "I want that!" (despite he allowed or not), JS just silently does "that". It's horrible practice and strictly disallowed in enterprise code. That's why we use "statically typing" languages - they give you 100% guarantee you don't call "toaster.GimmeCoffe" - simply because it cannot! I feel a big sorry for poor JS developers - they chose so horrible language and waste so much time on learning, developing, debugging... Guys, what for?? Are you masochists?? :confused:
-
I'm working on a prototype for a friend. We're attempting to turn a leadership exercise / game into an automated thing. Basically you have 5 people who each take a character type (barbarian, elf, thief, wizard or leader) and attempt to make it through a 36 room dungeon. It's currently played on posterboard with some real tokens so we are keeping it very simple. "I could write that up for you as an HTML5 Canvas game," said I. And so it began. I draw a grid of 6x6 (36 rooms). I put in the obstacles users cannot see. I allow them to move their tokens. Things are going along swimmingly in JavaScript and I'm generating functionality quickly. It's only 1000 lines of code. (That's like 4 printed pages. Not bad.) Suddenly I have this bug. It's on line 238 and tells me "room does not have a constructor" and it only occurs if I move a token and then restart the game. What!?! It looks like the following:
gameVars.allRooms.push(new room({location:i}));
Line 238 has not changed in many iterations (I'm using Git so I can tell).
new room({location:i})just sends in a json object which is used to initialize the object. It's quite simple. But finding the bug is very difficult. After hours of picking it apart line-by-line I find a line of code I suspect that is down in another function and shouldn't affect anything. It's way down on line 756 and the compiler has never said anything about it:function playerMovementHandler(playerTokenIdx){
var output = document.getElementById("output");
var currentPlayer = gameVars.allPlayers[playerTokenIdx];
room = hitTestRoom(currentPlayer,gameVars.allRooms);Do you see that? I accidentally didn't type
var. Sure it seems obvious now. If I had named that room variable anything else (different from the name of the function/class) it wouldn't have ever hurt me either. But, but, but... JavaScript compiler why couldn't you have mentioned it? Maybe if I'd had strict enabled or something. It's me shooting myself in the foot, I know. Here's The Terrible Explanation But the deal is that in this case the JavaScript compiler was redefining my room class (which are functions in JavaScript) using thehitTestRoom()function instead of just calling thehitTestRoom()function and returning the room object. So, when I would restart the game after moving a game token the code would return to the top with the room class redefined anJavaScript is like virginity. It is its' own punishment. ;P
Really and Truly.....
-
I'm working on a prototype for a friend. We're attempting to turn a leadership exercise / game into an automated thing. Basically you have 5 people who each take a character type (barbarian, elf, thief, wizard or leader) and attempt to make it through a 36 room dungeon. It's currently played on posterboard with some real tokens so we are keeping it very simple. "I could write that up for you as an HTML5 Canvas game," said I. And so it began. I draw a grid of 6x6 (36 rooms). I put in the obstacles users cannot see. I allow them to move their tokens. Things are going along swimmingly in JavaScript and I'm generating functionality quickly. It's only 1000 lines of code. (That's like 4 printed pages. Not bad.) Suddenly I have this bug. It's on line 238 and tells me "room does not have a constructor" and it only occurs if I move a token and then restart the game. What!?! It looks like the following:
gameVars.allRooms.push(new room({location:i}));
Line 238 has not changed in many iterations (I'm using Git so I can tell).
new room({location:i})just sends in a json object which is used to initialize the object. It's quite simple. But finding the bug is very difficult. After hours of picking it apart line-by-line I find a line of code I suspect that is down in another function and shouldn't affect anything. It's way down on line 756 and the compiler has never said anything about it:function playerMovementHandler(playerTokenIdx){
var output = document.getElementById("output");
var currentPlayer = gameVars.allPlayers[playerTokenIdx];
room = hitTestRoom(currentPlayer,gameVars.allRooms);Do you see that? I accidentally didn't type
var. Sure it seems obvious now. If I had named that room variable anything else (different from the name of the function/class) it wouldn't have ever hurt me either. But, but, but... JavaScript compiler why couldn't you have mentioned it? Maybe if I'd had strict enabled or something. It's me shooting myself in the foot, I know. Here's The Terrible Explanation But the deal is that in this case the JavaScript compiler was redefining my room class (which are functions in JavaScript) using thehitTestRoom()function instead of just calling thehitTestRoom()function and returning the room object. So, when I would restart the game after moving a game token the code would return to the top with the room class redefined an -
Sander Rossel wrote:
Oops... Option Strict is indeed a remnant from my VB days..
That's funny. Don't tell, but I've got VB 1.x then 4.x,5.x,6.x in my background too. Shhhh....
Same here, but I must confess. I still have VB 6.0 in a VM at home. I keep it for nostalgia reasons. Back in the 90's, I had several award winning pieces of software. Still have the code and can still make changes. :-\
When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others. Same thing when you are stupid.
-
I love JS. Does that make me NOT a developer?
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
ZurdoDev wrote:
I love JS. Does that make me NOT a developer?
No, no. Of course not. I mean, if you become addicted to any substance, does that make you not an addict? I'll let you answer that for myself. :laugh:
-
A poor craftsman blames his tools. Javascript (or any language) is as good or bad as the developer using it. You can paint yourself in a corner using any language the only difference is the color of the paint! Sorry guys, but tell me that ain't the truth. ;-)
If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur! - Red Adair
A good craftsman blames himself, for not bringing the right tols to the job.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
ouch
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
ZurdoDev wrote:
ouch
:-D Please don't let it spread around, but I really like JavaScript too. I like it because it is proliferate --- browsers are everywhere -- you can write code anywhere! I just wish it had some more and better tools for debugging and compiler warnings so development with it could be more structured and systematic. But sometimes I just really like it because it is so wild and zany too. It's so dynamic you can do crazy cool things with it. Also, the Canvas (drawing / gaming) stuff that you can do is amazing and quite easy to learn. Check out my robotDots article (HTML5 Canvas : Clean JavaScript & Code Organization Allows Faster Dev, Easier Extensibility[^]) or my console in a web page article (Command Console in your browser via HTML5 Canvas & JavaScript[^]) here at CP. Of course you are a real dev. :thumbsup:
-
ZurdoDev wrote:
ouch
:-D Please don't let it spread around, but I really like JavaScript too. I like it because it is proliferate --- browsers are everywhere -- you can write code anywhere! I just wish it had some more and better tools for debugging and compiler warnings so development with it could be more structured and systematic. But sometimes I just really like it because it is so wild and zany too. It's so dynamic you can do crazy cool things with it. Also, the Canvas (drawing / gaming) stuff that you can do is amazing and quite easy to learn. Check out my robotDots article (HTML5 Canvas : Clean JavaScript & Code Organization Allows Faster Dev, Easier Extensibility[^]) or my console in a web page article (Command Console in your browser via HTML5 Canvas & JavaScript[^]) here at CP. Of course you are a real dev. :thumbsup:
-
A convention in JS (and it is just a convention, I do not know if JSLint checks for it) is to name functions that are used as constructors with names starting with a capital letter and functions not used as constructors with names starting with lowercase letters (or $ or _). So, if you had used that convention, you would have written 'new Room()' and you would have been safe.
As with all conventions, there are many: Where I work, we use _ to designate private stuff, and $ to designate DOM objects...
-
It's not just JS, there's other languages where the compiler just chugs along trying to make sense of whatever code is there. VB isn't much better (although option strict and option explicit help). Or what about C? Ever had a nonsensical (it seems) error 14 lines later than where you made the mistake? And that's supposed to be THE system language on the planet.
At my first employer as a very junior software engineer (though we called ourselves programmers back then - early 1990s), we used a variant of the PICK operating system called UniVERSE that ran on AIX. Our code was mainly in PICK BASIC, which was a "business BASIC" variant. With the version we were using, we'd sometimes run into bugs that would throw an error at runtime, but when you'd run it in the debugger (which was a nice step-wise debugger, with tons of nice features for the time), it would pass right by the line with the supposed error, and work just fine. Then you'd exit the debugger, run the same piece of code - and it would work perfectly! Think about that - it was a literal debugger! Even so, it was hella annoying...
-
At my first employer as a very junior software engineer (though we called ourselves programmers back then - early 1990s), we used a variant of the PICK operating system called UniVERSE that ran on AIX. Our code was mainly in PICK BASIC, which was a "business BASIC" variant. With the version we were using, we'd sometimes run into bugs that would throw an error at runtime, but when you'd run it in the debugger (which was a nice step-wise debugger, with tons of nice features for the time), it would pass right by the line with the supposed error, and work just fine. Then you'd exit the debugger, run the same piece of code - and it would work perfectly! Think about that - it was a literal debugger! Even so, it was hella annoying...
The heisenbug, a bug disappearing when being looked at. My own experience with such bugs boils down to mostly 2 situations: 1. Timing conditions, the debugger (by principle) slows code down. Solution: Introduce a Sleep(300). 2. Code design to behave differently under a debugger. I remember inheriting a piece of code written like that, cursing loud enough to get asked WTF is going on my several colleagues, throwing this piece of trash away and reimplementing the same functionality anew.
-
I'm working on a prototype for a friend. We're attempting to turn a leadership exercise / game into an automated thing. Basically you have 5 people who each take a character type (barbarian, elf, thief, wizard or leader) and attempt to make it through a 36 room dungeon. It's currently played on posterboard with some real tokens so we are keeping it very simple. "I could write that up for you as an HTML5 Canvas game," said I. And so it began. I draw a grid of 6x6 (36 rooms). I put in the obstacles users cannot see. I allow them to move their tokens. Things are going along swimmingly in JavaScript and I'm generating functionality quickly. It's only 1000 lines of code. (That's like 4 printed pages. Not bad.) Suddenly I have this bug. It's on line 238 and tells me "room does not have a constructor" and it only occurs if I move a token and then restart the game. What!?! It looks like the following:
gameVars.allRooms.push(new room({location:i}));
Line 238 has not changed in many iterations (I'm using Git so I can tell).
new room({location:i})just sends in a json object which is used to initialize the object. It's quite simple. But finding the bug is very difficult. After hours of picking it apart line-by-line I find a line of code I suspect that is down in another function and shouldn't affect anything. It's way down on line 756 and the compiler has never said anything about it:function playerMovementHandler(playerTokenIdx){
var output = document.getElementById("output");
var currentPlayer = gameVars.allPlayers[playerTokenIdx];
room = hitTestRoom(currentPlayer,gameVars.allRooms);Do you see that? I accidentally didn't type
var. Sure it seems obvious now. If I had named that room variable anything else (different from the name of the function/class) it wouldn't have ever hurt me either. But, but, but... JavaScript compiler why couldn't you have mentioned it? Maybe if I'd had strict enabled or something. It's me shooting myself in the foot, I know. Here's The Terrible Explanation But the deal is that in this case the JavaScript compiler was redefining my room class (which are functions in JavaScript) using thehitTestRoom()function instead of just calling thehitTestRoom()function and returning the room object. So, when I would restart the game after moving a game token the code would return to the top with the room class redefined anraddevus wrote:
...in this case the JavaScript compiler...
That might be your problem, you're compiling and interpreted language! Seriously, though, if you're concerned with size (as mentioned above) just minify the production version.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
