Yeah, JS always seemed like the red-headed stepchild of modern languages. I’d be curious to know if other ECMAScript languages like JScript are as, eh, “quirky”, suggesting that the ECMA spec is the source of the quirkiness, or if JavaScript itself is the one making silly decisions. Technically, I mostly work with Google’s AppScript when I use ECMAScript stuff, but I’m fairly certain AppsScript is based off of JavaScript instead of directly based on the ECMA spec, so I don’t think it’s separate enough for me to draw a conclusion there.

It doesn’t have to be the default to be built in, tho. It could be an overloaded function, having the “default” be the typical convert-to-string sorting, and an overloaded function that allows to specify a type.

It’s just such a common thing, wanting to sort a list by different types, that I’m surprised there hasn’t been an official implementation added like this. I get that it a simple “fix” to make, but I just think that if it’s that simple yet kind of obscure (enough that people are still constantly asking about it) there should be an official implementation, rather than something you have build yourself.

Right, but you have to make that comparator yourself, it’s not a built-in part of the language. The only built-in comparator converts values to strings and compares them in code units orders.

Also, that technically isnt type-safe, is it? If you threw a string or a NaN at that it would fail. As far as I knew, type safe means that a function can handle type errors itself, rather than throwing an exception. So in this case the function would automatically convert types if it was type-safe to prevent an unhandled exception.

I think the main shortcoming here is that there isnt a way to specify the type to sort as, instead you have to write the function to compare them as numbers yourself. If it’s such a simple implementation, why isn’t it officially implemented? Why isn’t there a sortAs() that takes two args, the input list, and a Type value? Check every element matches the type and then sort, otherwise return a Type Error.

What are 5 of the 1000 bad things Valve has specifically done for Linux gamers? 5 things that are on par with the (apparently) “one” good thing Valve did for Linux gamers, which is (I guess) create a gaming distro and distro-independent open-source compatibility layer that enables phenomenal performance, sometimes even better than running linux native code? A compatible layer co-developed by CodeWeavers, known for being one of, if not THE biggest contributor to Wine and the primary maintainer of the Wine project?

I feel like a solution similar to m.2 could work, holding the module in place with a screw. I dont think the m.2 connector would suffice as it only has 67 pins and DIMMs have I think 288 pins, so that’s quite a difference. I do think SODIMM has less pins, but not much less, definitely not to the tune of less than a quarter as many.

Having recently looked inside my steam deck to upgrade the storage, I honestly think they would have had room for at least one SODIMM slot, but the tradeoff is increased thermals, more power draw, and probably some design constraints around the pcb leads possibly leading to increased overhead or latency. I agree that a new form factor would be best to address these issues. It would be cool if something similar to the SXM socket came out, having a pad of pins so you can increase the amount of pins while taking up the same space.