alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Programmer HumorEnglish · 1 year agoPick a side Javascriptlemmy.worldimagemessage-square41fedilinkarrow-up1711arrow-down137
arrow-up1674arrow-down1imagePick a side Javascriptlemmy.worldalphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Programmer HumorEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square41fedilink
minus-squareKonlanx@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up59arrow-down1·edit-21 year agoIt’s not. The default sorter does that, because that way it can sort pretty much anything without breaking at runtime. You can overwrite it easily, though. For the example above you could simply do it like this: [3, 1, 10].sort((a, b) => a - b) Returns: [1, 3, 10]
minus-squarenewIdentity@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 year agoHoly shit that’s actually true. I just tried it
minus-squaresociablefishlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 year ago The default sorter does that, because that way it can sort pretty much anything without breaking at runtime. who the fuck decided that not breaking at runtime was more important than making sense? this js example of [1, 3, 10].sort() vs [1, 3, 10].sort((a, b) => a - b) will be my go to example of why good defaults are important
It’s not. The default sorter does that, because that way it can sort pretty much anything without breaking at runtime. You can overwrite it easily, though. For the example above you could simply do it like this:
[3, 1, 10].sort((a, b) => a - b)Returns:
[1, 3, 10]Holy shit that’s actually true. I just tried it
who the fuck decided that not breaking at runtime was more important than making sense?
this js example of
[1, 3, 10].sort()vs[1, 3, 10].sort((a, b) => a - b)will be my go to example of why good defaults are important