This would have made a good addition to the (in)famous WAT talk:<p><a href="https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat" rel="nofollow">https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat</a>
Another good one is (in python):<p>print(chr(sum(range(ord(min(str(not())))))))<p>> ඞ<p>Source: <a href="https://x.com/chordbug/status/1834642829919781369" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/chordbug/status/1834642829919781369</a>
Did you know we almost had a lisp style language in our browsers? But Sun's marketing budget on "Java" made something that sounded similar (JavaScript) favored more<p>people wouldn't have these weird questions if we had used good programming languages from the start, but marketing dollars changed this timeline forever and every new generation learns about wtf-js
<a href="https://github.com/aemkei/jsfuck">https://github.com/aemkei/jsfuck</a><p>Has anyone seen a transpiler for regular JS into jsfuck?<p>It would be like maxify-obscurify
Everyone who tries `++[[]][+[]]+[+[]]` stumbles upon this. Who hasn’t?<p>I expected `8`. `10` left me in disbelief before I found the accepted answer on the question.
++[++[+[]][+[]]][+[]]
outputs 2 as a Number (rather than as string). How high could we go with those 3 characters ([, ] and +, no spaces) with less-than-exponential scaling compared to amount of digits of the result, as Number (as string it's easy by concatenating digits of course)?<p>I'm thinking it's not possible without being able to use '*'