I think its type system is "okay", I mean inherently dynamic typing is pretty error-prone. But its type coercion algorithms are bonkers. Also that whole "NaN ≠ NaN" business...
See that's one of the parts that is actually almost in line with other languages. In Go, for example, nil ≠ nil because nil is, by definition, undefined. You can't say whether one thing that you know nothing about is at all like something else that you know nothing about. It really should raise an exception at the attempt to compare NaN though.
IIRC, a nil value can be checked against a literal successfully but not against another nil value. Say you want to check for equality of two vars that could be nil. You just need an extra if statement to ensure that you are not trying to compare nil and nil or nil and a non-nil value (that'll give you a type error or NPE):
var a *string
var b *string
...
if a != nil && b != nil {
if a == b {
fmt.Println("Party!")
} else {
fmt.Println("Also Party!")
}
It's onanism in English. And it's rather stupid to call it that because Onan didn't masturbate, he used the pull out method to avoid getting his sister-in-law pregnant with his brother's kid. (yes, I know that sounds weird but that's the story)
I figure it is called that because both the pull-out method and masturbation for penis-havers involves spilling your seed somewhere outside of a woman's womb.
Yes, from a superficial viewpoint they are similar. And from a superficial viewpoint shooting a practice target is similar to shooting a person dead. It would be rather stupid to refer to target practice as murder.
I get your point, but considering that we got the word "Onanism" from the Bible I was thinking about some Christian denominations' views of why God wasn't happy with Onan in the Bible: because he ejaculated without trying to procreate. That is why I thought it was relevant to tie those two things together like that.
According to Wikipedia, Biblical scholars essentially agree with you, to the point
Bible scholars even maintain that the Bible does not claim that masturbation would be sinful.
which is pretty cool especially given my prior belief that most people agreed it was about lust. Wikipedia does also say that some Christian denominations have interpreted the sin to be as lust, though.
And Catholicism, at least, still doesn't like the ejaculation without procreation:
Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."
Not the same thing, I'm pretty sure something like that is in almost any language, but here it's the official word for male masturbation, not some niche word that's not really used much.
I know the story and you're right, it's pretty dumb how it's used.
But as you mention, NaN propagates.
So at checkout, your wallet will become NaN, as the shops money balance. Then it will spread to your bank account and before you realize what happens the whole banking-district is in flames.
