[demonshalo]

> The biggest problem I see with people trying to write unit tests is that they don’t want to change how they write code. It’s like watching an OO person try their hardest to write OO code in a functional language.

<rant>

I personally hate javascript with the burning passion of a thousand suns. I just can't stand it. I can't stand the syntax, the philosophy, the package manager, the idea of "lets not worry about how X work just do an include and npm install", the abyss that is the error system, the person who considered 'undefined' to be a good thing to implement, the NaN that has nothing to do with numbers but everything to do with type casting when there is no actual type system, the lack of a good standard library, the fragmentation and slow progression of the language, the callback hell, the coercive nature of it's operators when you don't expect them to, the 6000 ways you can make an "object" that is not really an object, the confused terminology that goes against every other agreed-upon language, the myriads of outdated tutorials that lead developers to copy/paste code that stopped working 10 years ago, the notion that javascript is sexy and ES6 fixed it, the fact that you (whoever reads this) think you fixed it, the godawful bloated frameworks, the fact that I need 14000 dependencies to run a simple project because every 2 lines require their own implementation of a github repo so that the developer can boast about his cool profile, and most of all I hate the person who thought it would be a good idea to take this mess and put it server side.

</rant>

I can put almost all of that aside and work through threw whatever is thrown at me. However, what I can't ignore is when a language is deceptive by nature. Ex. Javasript uses the term "object" to describe something that isn't an object in the traditional sense. Hence when an OO person tries to write OO code in said language they end up getting virtually molested by whoever designed said functionality mainly because the OO person expects things to work in a certain way when they don't due to naming.

The problem is not them not adapting and changing how they write code; the problem is actually the language itself being designed by retarded monkeys who confuse terminology and at the same time don't communicate the reasoning behind their decision making. Hence what you get is someone like myself who spends hours pulling his hair out trying to figure out why there is nothing similar to an isset() function in the standard library or why '2 == [[2]]' or why JS adds a ';' at the end of EVERY LINE. I mean Just look at this:

function mynum() { return 1; }

console.log(mynum()); // undefined

I would submit to you that most OO people would have an easy time transition to ANY functional language that isn't designed to confuse because before we ever did OO, all of us did functions and can easily reason about them and how they relate to each other. The problem is the language, not the user!