Lady in Love @Lady@cat.family

@coriander @wallhackio @aescling eh i think totk is substantially a worse game but

@wallhackio did you skip on new horizons or

@aescling @Satsuma señor clod

@aescling @Satsuma no hablo inglés

@aescling @Satsuma https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Fidough_(Pok%C3%A9mon)

@wallhackio it means flower baby but it’s a pokémon

@wallhackio have you seen the flabébé episode of pokémon journeys

@aescling @wallhackio @Satsuma coffeescript is an alternative syntax for javascript but javascript is the ORIGINAL alternative syntax for javascript

@aescling @wallhackio @Satsuma well the more historically correct way of thinking about it is that Javascript has added syntactic molasses for manually doing the operations that it was always doing under the hood, but the even more enlightened understanding is that all of javascript is syntactic sugar for the ecmascript specification language, at which point the difference between “an operation which does a thing” and “sugar for the thing itself” is semantically meaningless

@aescling @wallhackio @Satsuma so

a.b = c.d(e);

is syntactic sugar for

Reflect.set(Object(a), "b", Reflect.apply(Reflect.get(Object(c), "d", c), c, [e]), a);

each step of which converts only as absolutely necessary and does property chain lookup as required

@aescling @wallhackio @Satsuma javascript is Good(tm) because it doesn’t have weak typing so much as syntactic sugar; it is not simply casting things to objects but rather preserving the original values in a nest of operations which cast only when absolutely necessary

@wallhackio @Satsuma you can't Object.setPrototypeOf("foo") and have it work, importantly