Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #28040

Re: null and NaN

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/06/15 04:59, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/15 03:39, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>>>> [typeof null === "object] happens due to a bug in the first version of
>>>> JS [1].
>>>>
>>>> [1] <http://www.2ality.com/2013/10/typeof-null.html>
>>> […]
>>> It could be a bug, but it could also have been *intentional*.  Only
>>> Brendan Eich, sole author of the first JavaScript version [2], can say
>>> for sure.
>>
>> Yes, Brendan once considered the need to fix typeof [1], but rejected
>> that proposal stating: "I think it is too late to fix typeof. The change
>> proposed for typeof null will break existing code."
>>
>> [1] <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:typeof>
>>
>> In another discussion [2], he wrote: "In general, typeof seems like a
>> mess that will be hard to reform sensibly."
>>
>> [2] <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=discussion:typeof>
>
> AISB, in hindsight Eich admitted *design* errors.  That does not prove
> that it was a *bug caused by the code itself* as claimed by Dr. Rauschmeyer,
> and you, based only on his speculation.  He committed a historian’s fallacy,
> and you an /ipse dixit/ one.

typeof null == "object" was considered a bug by Brendan Eich - the 
father of JavaScript:

"We have reason to believe typeof null === “object” *is a bug* that 
could bite real content, from our spidering of the web. We have no such 
evidence in favor of breaking typeof String === “function”, and plenty 
of reason to fear incompatibility. It might be best to leave typeof 
utterly alone and deprecate it, *but I’m still in favor of the null 
bug-fix*.

— Brendan Eich 2006/03/31 16:34"

<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=discussion:typeof>

>
>>> However, that the ECMAScript Language Specification [3] […] says:
>>> […]
>>> indicates that it is _not_ a bug.  “null” *has* something to do with
>>> objects that other primitive values have not.
>>
>> These references only prove that JS was prematurely standardized, making
>> necessary corrections more difficult to be implemented.
>
> Assumption, not evidence.


Evidence proven at:
<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=discussion:typeof>

-- 
Joao Rodrigues

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: null and NaN Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-05 00:55 -0300
  Re: null and NaN Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-06-05 06:57 -0500
    Re: null and NaN Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-07 18:47 +1000
  Re: null and NaN Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-06 08:39 +0200
    Re: null and NaN Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-06 23:15 -0300
      Re: null and NaN Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-07 09:59 +0200
        Re: null and NaN Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-07 22:30 -0300
          Re: null and NaN Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-10 20:48 +0200
            Re: null and NaN Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-11 10:01 -0300
              Re: null and NaN "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-06-11 15:28 +0200
                Re: null and NaN Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-11 11:34 -0300
                Re: null and NaN "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-06-11 21:07 +0200
                Re: null and NaN Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-11 17:29 -0300
                Re: null and NaN "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-06-11 23:15 +0200

csiph-web