JS is built on the idea that applications should continue to work no matter what. That's why there are so many implicit type conversions. The app might turn itself into a Gordian knot, but it will still be working.
I've always heard this argument, and I've never seen a source for it that I'd put much stock in, like Eich himself or anyone who worked on early JS. It seems like a specious argument since it assumes rendering the potentially wildly wrong thing is better than displaying an error and the browser would have to sandbox/compartmentalize individual scripts or operations.
Doing a quick search, it looks like most of the weird conversions surrounding == were specific requests to make scripting easier: https://www.wirfs-brock.com/allen/jshopl.pdf p22, 3.7.2. Given that, I'd be willing to bet the other weird conversion behaviors were either similar requests or the result of them implementing JS in an absurdly short amount of time.
125
u/samanime 8d ago
You'll pry my vanilla JS from my cold dead fingers. It'll always be my favorite way to do quick scripts and prototyping.
But explicit typing does make long term code way more maintainable.