I wonder how many millions of programmer man-hours have been wasted working around JavaScript’s design mistakes that could’ve been saved simply by putting Scheme or Python (which were actually being considered) in the browser instead.
Opposite, living in a house of cards is when you blindly trust data that comes from user. Regardless of the language. eqeqeq isn’t in the recommended linting presets because if you end up needing it, you’re probably already in big trouble because of insecure software design.
Then where do you see the house of cards? What’s the practical difference between == and ===, when your app is type-checked and the inputs are safely parsed?
Because you don’t know whether you’ve actually type-checked everything and that your inputs are safely parsed. Part of defensive programming is to adopt multiple defences to prevent bad data from getting through, including avoiding ==.
“I have no problem living in a house of cards as I make sure to never bump against the walls.”
I wonder how many millions of programmer man-hours have been wasted working around JavaScript’s design mistakes that could’ve been saved simply by putting Scheme or Python (which were actually being considered) in the browser instead.
Opposite, living in a house of cards is when you blindly trust data that comes from user. Regardless of the language.
eqeqeqisn’t in the recommended linting presets because if you end up needing it, you’re probably already in big trouble because of insecure software design.Nobody is advocating for blindly trusting data from the user.
Then where do you see the house of cards? What’s the practical difference between == and ===, when your app is type-checked and the inputs are safely parsed?
Because you don’t know whether you’ve actually type-checked everything and that your inputs are safely parsed. Part of defensive programming is to adopt multiple defences to prevent bad data from getting through, including avoiding ==.