It’s because parseInt is expecting a string, so the decimal gets converted to a string, and
0.0000005.toString()returns5e-7.If anyone’s wondering why:
>> 0.000005 0.000005>> 0.0000005 5e-7Yup. parseInt is for strings.
Math.floor, Math.ceil, Math.round or Math.trunc are for numeric type “conversions” (cause its still a float)Nah, it’s stupid either way.
“5e-7” is not an int to be parsed. Neither is “0.5”.
Ah, folly of untyped systems. Tbh this behaviour makes sense given the rules implemented within the language. Anything passed to parseInt is casted to string and then parsed.
Is it shitty behaviour - yes. Does it make sense in given the language implementation - yes.
People give JS a lot of shit. And I do too. But it’s meant to continue running and not fail like C code would. It’s meant to basically go “yeah, sure I’ll fuck with that” and keep trucking.
So you can always make it do stupid shit when you use it a stupid way.
Is this bad? Maybe. Was it the intention of the language? Absolutely.
Typescript fixes a lot of these headaches. But I feel like JS is doing exactly what it was meant to do. Keep trucking even when the programmer asks it to do stupid shit.
If you’re using JS and don’t understand this then it’s your fault and not the languages fault.
Do we all want to live in a world of typedefs as strict as C and have our webpages crash with the slightest unexpected char input? Probably not.
We don’t notice all the time JS goes “yeah I can fuck with that” and it works perfectly. We only notice the times it does that and it results in something silly.
TLDR: JS does what it was made to do. And because of that it looks absolutely ridiculous sometimes.
What language is that so I can avoid it.
We all know what it is.
Another classic javascript wat
Classic people who don’t know how to code wat. Passing a number in place of a string argument because they don’t know what they’re doing.
Javascript could throw an error to alert you that the input is supposed to be a string, like most languages would do.
But you’re calling a function specifically made for passing a string to an int… 😆 There’s gotta be some common sense somewhere here, guys.
Still, it’s a very good point. JS should do this.
I would suspect one reason it doesn’t do this is to be backwards compatible.
Theoretically, Javascript is an untyped language, so there aren’t supposed to really be static types. Giving type errors in this situation would be against design.
Maybe the design is bad, then.
JavaScript has types and it does have type errors, for instance
> null.foo Uncaught TypeError: null has no propertiesPlease stop spouting nonsense on issues you know nothing about.
Dynamic types aren’t static types my man. I think you got some learning to do.
Good old JS, because exceptions are a sin.
