Programming quirks Memes

The ultimate JavaScript trivia nightmare! Every single option here is a trick question showcasing JavaScript's bizarre type coercion and equality rules: A: typeof null === 'object' is actually TRUE - a notorious JS bug that's been around since the beginning. Null isn't an object, but returns 'object' when typeof'd. B: Math.min() > Math.max() is TRUE too! Without arguments, Math.min() returns Infinity while Math.max() returns -Infinity. C: NaN === NaN is FALSE - the only value in JavaScript that isn't equal to itself! D: 0 == "" is TRUE because JavaScript type coercion converts empty strings to 0. The contestant's face says it all - the answer is C, but knowing JavaScript, you'd question your entire programming career before answering.

JavaScript's type coercion strikes again! In JS, when comparing strings with > , it performs lexicographical comparison - meaning "Dog" > "Cat" evaluates to true because 'D' comes after 'C' in the alphabet. The grumpy kitten represents Brendan Eich (JavaScript's creator) facepalming at his own language quirks. He unleashed these string comparison shenanigans on the world and now even cats are judging him for it. The feline uprising begins with alphabetical order!

The stick figure enthusiastically declares JavaScript as their favorite language, only to reveal why: JavaScript's infamous type coercion turns "11" + 1 into "111" (string concatenation) but "11" - 1 into 10 (numeric subtraction). This is the programming equivalent of falling in love with someone for their most chaotic trait. It's like saying "I adore this person because they alphabetize their bookshelf but organize their fridge by color." The drunk character in the corner just watching this madness unfold is every senior developer who's been burned by these quirks but has Stockholm syndrome at this point.

JavaScript's parseInt function just decided that 0.0000005 equals 5 because scientific notation turned it into "5e-7" and parseInt grabbed just the "5" like a toddler picking only the M&Ms out of trail mix. Six decimal places? Nah, too much work. Five? Still zero. Seven? BOOM, suddenly 5. It's like JavaScript was programmed by someone rolling dice to determine behavior. No wonder developers drink.

Ah, the apocalyptic quartet of syntax that makes developers question their career choices! Double equals comparing to true is like wearing socks with sandals - technically works but why would you do that? Just use the boolean directly! The null check with ?? that shows up uninvited in every codebase like that one relative at family gatherings who keeps asking why you're still single. Double exclamation marks on booleans - because apparently one wasn't dramatic enough to convert values to boolean. It's the coding equivalent of saying "REALLY REALLY" to emphasize your point. And that empty for loop with just a semicolon? Pure chaos. The kind of code that makes senior devs develop eye twitches during code reviews. These four horsemen don't just signal the end of readable code - they're the reason why Stack Overflow exists.