• @hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I dint know many OO languages that don’t have a useless toString on string types.

      Well, that’s just going to be one of those “it is what it is” things in an OO language if your base class has a toString()-equivalent. Sure, it’s probably useless for a string, but if everything’s an object and inherits from some top-level Object class with a toString() method, then you’re going to get a toString() method in strings too. You’re going to get a toString() in everything; in JS even functions have a toString() (the output of which depends on the implementation):

      In a dynamically typed language, if you know that everything can be turned into a string with toString() (or the like), then you can just call that method on any value you have and not have to worry about whether it’ll hurl at runtime because eg. Strings don’t have a toString because it’d technically be useless.

    • @TCB13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13 months ago

      I dint know many OO languages that don’t have a useless toString on string types

      Okay, fair enough. Guess I never found about it because I never had to do it… JS also allows for "test string".toString() directly, not sure how it goes in other languages.

      • @tmat256
        link
        33 months ago

        It’s also incredibly useful as a failsafe in a helper method where you need the argument to be a string but someone might pass in something that is sort of a string. Lets you be a little more flexible in how your method gets called