javascript Memes

The bell curve strikes again. You've got the newbies on the left who just discovered JavaScript's type coercion and think they've unlocked the secrets of the universe. On the right, the grizzled veterans who've seen enough production bugs to know that literally every language has its own special brand of chaos. And there in the middle? The vast majority who picked JavaScript as their punching bag because it's trendy to dunk on JS. Plot twist: they're using it in their day job anyway because the entire web runs on it. The real joke is that all programming languages are weird and quirky once you dig deep enough. JavaScript just has the audacity to do it in a browser where everyone can see.

When RAM prices quadruple in less than a year and your entire business model is "just download more Chrome tabs," you're gonna have a bad time. Electron devs watching their apps go from "slightly bloated" to "mortgage payment" in system requirements. That sweating guy meme face says it all—they're out here shipping desktop apps that bundle an entire Chromium browser just to display a to-do list, and now users need to take out a loan to afford the RAM. For context: Electron lets you build desktop apps with web technologies, which is convenient but notoriously memory-hungry since each app basically runs its own browser instance. When RAM was cheap, nobody cared. Now? Your Slack, Discord, and VS Code are collectively eating more resources than a small data center.

Remember when building a cross-platform desktop app seemed like a good idea? Just wrap an entire Chromium browser around your glorified calculator app, they said. It'll be fine, they said. Now every todo list app on your machine is basically running its own copy of Chrome, each one hogging more RAM than your entire OS did in 2010. Your 32GB of RAM? Gone. Your fans spinning up for a chat app? Normal. Your CPU crying because you opened Slack, VS Code, Discord, and Spotify at the same time? Just another Tuesday. The real kicker? RAM prices are skyrocketing because everyone's buying GPUs for AI training, so now you get to pay premium prices to run five instances of Chromium just to check your messages. What a time to be alive.

So you're telling me that accessing an array with a negative index in JavaScript not only works but actually adds a property to the array? And then when you check the array, it shows you this cursed -1: 4 sitting there like it belongs? The bell curve perfectly captures the JavaScript experience: beginners think it's ridiculous (correct), experts also think it's ridiculous (also correct), but the middle crowd has Stockholm syndrome and will defend it with their lives. "It makes sense bro, everything in JS is an object!" Yeah, and that's exactly the problem. JavaScript treats arrays like objects because they are objects, so test[-1] = 4 is just adding a property named "-1" to your array object. It's technically in the spec, which somehow makes it worse.

Electron apps: where your simple to-do list needs 800MB of RAM because why optimize when you can just ship an entire Chromium browser with it? The developer confidently explains their revolutionary idea while someone from a timeline where RAM actually costs money arrives to stop this madness. But modern devs don't care—memory is cheap and abundant, so let's just bundle V8, Node.js, and the kitchen sink for that calculator app. Meanwhile, embedded systems engineers are weeping in a corner with their 64KB constraints.

JavaScript really said "consistency is for COWARDS" and honestly? It committed to the bit. 💀 So you've got an array [1, 2, 3] and you're like "hey what's at index -2?" JavaScript casually returns undefined because negative indices don't exist in JS arrays... EXCEPT when you use .at(-2) which is specifically designed to handle negative indices and suddenly it's like "oh you want the second element from the end? Here's your 2, bestie!" Then you assign foo[-2] = 4 which JavaScript happily accepts because arrays are objects and you just created a STRING property called "-2" on that array object. So now foo[-2] returns 4 from the object property while foo.at(-2) STILL returns 2 from the actual array position. Same syntax, completely different universes. Very respectable. Very normal. Nothing to see here. 🎪

Oh, the absolute HORROR of 12-year-old you thinking that hbglp , vbglp , and cdc were the height of programming sophistication! Nothing screams "elite hacker" quite like variable names that look like someone smashed their keyboard while having a seizure, am I right? And that LINE 210? SWEET MOTHER OF SPAGHETTI CODE, it's longer than a CVS receipt! That single line is basically a novel written in the ancient tongue of "I-have-no-idea-what-future-me-will-think." The nested ternaries, the eval() calls, the complete and utter disregard for human readability—it's like looking at the Necronomicon of JavaScript. Young developers everywhere: this is your brain on "looking cool." Please, for the love of all that is holy, use descriptive variable names and hit that Enter key once in a while. Your future self (and literally anyone who has to touch your code) will thank you instead of plotting your demise. 💀

Behold, the cursed art of using eval() to concatenate strings as variable names, creating what is essentially the world's most horrifying key-value store. Instead of using blocks[blockId].x like a normal human being, this 11-year-old genius decided to dynamically construct variable names like "lev" + level + "block" + blockId + "x" and eval them into existence. It's like watching someone reinvent the wheel, except the wheel is square, on fire, and somehow still rolling. The sheer determination to check collision boundaries and directions by string-concatenating variable names together is both terrifying and oddly impressive. Every senior dev who sees this code feels a strange mix of horror and nostalgia, because let's be real—we've all written something equally cursed when we were young and didn't know better. The difference is most of us burned the evidence.