Sad? I'd say the exact opposite of that. Moving on...

You have absolutely no evidence, so you direct me to a porn site? Are you 12? Why not just link to goatse?

Pathetic.

Nice change. (You never said that! At least you're trying to learn from your mistakes.) Of course, all it does is make you look like an idiot. 1) because you don't know what the term "non-deterministic" means 2) because variables in JS don't have types, values do.

Let me guess: You're an autodidact?

This has been driving me crazy. Since when is an explicit cast an "ugly hack"? How long have you been programming, half an hour?

So you rescind your claims that "the language behaves in a non-deterministic way" and "there is no way to say with certainty what the interpreter will do since there's no telling for sure if he will treat the "+" operator as a sum of integers or a concatenation of strings"?

That's what this whole thing was about, after all. If you're willing to accept that those nonsense claims are total nonsense, then we're in complete agreement.

If you're not, then you're 100% wrong when you claim to "know how the '+' operator works".

I wonder, as you double-down on your lunacy:

You wouldn't need your "ugly hack" if you knew how the + operator worked, after all.

No, you didn't. You still don't know how the + operator works. You just came up with a convoluted way to avoid learning how it works.

If you had actually learned how the + operator works, you wouldn't say ridiculous things like "random" or "there is no way to say with certainty what the interpreter will do".

Perhaps you shouldn't post about things you know nothing about. If nothing else, when someone points out how ridiculous you sound, you read the docs to make sure that you're not continuing to spread nonsense.

No, you did not.

Is not a source. What's the domain?

Further: Why the hell would I go to any URL with a reference to masturbation? It looks like a sad joke.

It's like I'm talking to a wall.

There IS a "way to say with certainty what the interpreter will do". You just haven't taken the few minutes required to find out how!

Then you're either ridiculously lazy or a complete moron. You'll find that if you actually learn the language before you use it, you won't struggle with simple things.

Again, it's not the language's fault that you're unwilling or unable to learn how it works!

True.

The language does NOT behave in a non-deterministic way. That you believe it does IS your fault.

Yeah, it's not language's fault that you didn't bother to learn it.

It has types, and you really don't need classes. Prototypes are better in just about every way.

Randomly?

Look like you don't understand the basics of how the language works.

You can't blame that language for your gross incompetence.

So, you think js sucks because, if you're a total moron, you'll do dumb things?

No, we're not. We're talking about the belief in the existence of the teapot. Pay attention.

Let's take two people, Alice and Bob. Clara asks both of them if such a teapot exists. Alice says "I don't believe that teapot exists". Bob says "I believe no such teapot exists." Which of the following statements are true: (1) "Bob believes the teapot exists" (2) "Alice believes no teapot exists" (3) "Alice believes the teapot exists" (4) "Bob believes no teapot exists".

If that's still tripping you up, how would Alice and Bob each answer the question "Does the teapot exist?" with a simple "yes" or "no".

Nonsense!

Your problem is that you think that belief means something like "belief without reason" or "belief without evidence" or whatever other nonsense some youtube personality fed you. You like to think that you're above such things, some perfectly rational being, accepting only the assumptions necessary to function.

This is what happens when you get your "education" from blogs, forums, and youtube instead of a university.

Unless you're completely delusional, you'll soon come to discover that that isn't even remotely true. Even worse, you'll find that you actually DO believe things without reason or evidence -- most things, in fact. Go ahead, give it a bit of thought.

See, belief isn't subject to the will, after all. You can't choose to believe or choose to not believe in things. Give it a try. You can say it, but you can't actually force a change in your beliefs. (This isn't to say that beliefs can not change. For example, you could be convinced or otherwise compelled in to changing a belief.)

It's the damn gubment!

Yes they are. Good for you.

However, "I believe x does not exist" and "I do not believe x exists" are logically identical.

This isn't complicated. It's not even arguable. What's wrong with you?

I see that you're deeply confused by this concept of 'evidence'.

You can repeat "the truth is out there" all you want, just don't expect anyone to dive in to your paranoid fantasies just to see if there's anything to them. If you can't support your outlandish claims, I have absolutely no reason to believe them.