Except strict equality, that's a JavaScript only problem. Imagine thinking "0" should be falsy in comparison due to string literal evaluation, but truthy with logical not applied based on non-empty string. Thus !"0"=="0" is true. They couldn't just throw away == and start over nooooo let's add === . Utter madness

[–] JonEFive@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Strict vs loose equality has gotten me so many times, but I can sort of see why they did it. The problem you mention with integers 0 & 1 is a major annoyance though. Like it is fairly common to check whether a variable is populated by using if (variable) {} - if the variable happens to be an integer, and that integer happens to be 0, loose quality will reflect that as false.

But on the other side, there have been plenty of occasions where I'm expecting a boolean to come from somewhere and instead the data is passed as a text string. "true" == true but "true" !== true

[–] MakeAvoy@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Lua does intrinsic evaluation of strings that i'd argue is not nearly as crazy. I get the value of it since half of interpreted languages it just churning through strings. But I also don't recommend any large codebase ever use JS's == or string coercion because it can go against expectations. This graph argues in JS's favor but comparison is a little more crazy https://algassert.com/visualization/2014/03/27/Better-JS-Equality-Table.html

load more comments (2 replies)