Complexity is an inherent reality when dealing with any form of stuff that is constructed. The key word here is constructed, as when things are defined in very basic terms with little abstraction, complexity cannot really creep in. Rich Hickey gives a great talk in which he brings up a definition of simple that I have found to be my favorite. I find that understanding the opposite of complexity has been key in me understanding it in a real way. He speaks of how the roots of the word ‘simple’ are sim and plex, which mean ‘one twist or braid’. This is quite easy to wrap our mind around. If something is truly simple, it has one twist (result) to it. A great example would be a very basic addition function:

def add(x, y) when is_number(x) and is_number(y), do: x + y

Let’s look at this function.

If takes two arguments, and if and only if they are both numbers, then it will add them. It does not mutate the numbers. It simply returns a new number and leaves those two other pieces alone to frolic as they please in the bit-forest.

In this post, we will examine something (seemingly) simple along these same lines. We will then learn a lesson.

An Applied example

We’re gonna look at something very simple in JavaScript. We will pick a Primitive, one of its simplest building blocks, and examine it thoroughly.

A Starting Dive

JavaScript has 6 types of primitives, in its latest form. These are Undefined, Null, Boolean, Number, Symbol, or String. Number is a good entrypoint to examine something as a whole that is simple. Here, we will examine the Number primitive.

The official ECMAScript 2016 specification says this in its definitions about Primitive type values:

4.3.2 primitive value
member of one of the types Undefined, Null, Boolean, Number, Symbol, or String as defined in clause 6.
A primitive value is a datum that is represented directly at the lowest level of the language implementation.

There are also some subtleties to numbers in JavaScript, primarily because it turns out that rather than having a dedicated concept of an Integer, JavaScript only has floating point numbers, as defined per the IEEE 754 Double Precision Float specification.

Not-Quite-Simple Points: 1

Because everything is floats, we have the presence of a signed zero. Signed zero just means that we have +0, -0, and 0 all defined and they have certain requirements. The specification requres both +0 and -0 be defined. 1 / -0 should be -infinity and 1/+0 should be +infinity, while being undefined for +0 / +0 and +infinity / -infinity. Let’s open up a shell and examine this.

To start, lets look at basic equality:

> -0 === 0
> -0 == 0
> -0 === +0
> -0 == +0
> +0 === -0
> +0 == 0
> +0 === 0
> +0 == -0

Okay, but what about our division rules?

> 1 / -0
> 1 / +0
> +0 / +0 
> 0 / 0
> 0 / -0
> -0 / -0

Everything fits. Awesome.

A Bit Deeper

However, beyond == and ===, there is another way in JavaScript to strictly compare two things, called Let’s see what it thinks of how these zeroes compare:, 0)
true, -0)
false, +0)

Not-Quite-Simple Points: 2

Now this is a bit interesting. 0 and -0 are not considered equal by this setup. But what exactly is It was added in ES2015, and we can find the details for this in the official spec as well. The documentation says one or more of the following conditions being true will make it return true.

  • both arguments are Undefined
  • both arguments are Null
  • both arguments are True or both False
  • both arguments are String primitives of the same length with the same characters
  • both arguments are the same Object
  • both arguments are Number types AND
    • both arguments are +0
    • both arguments are -0
    • both arguments are NaN
  • or both arguments are non-zero and both not NaN and both have the same value

Okay, this seems reasonable and fits what we had. We dont even have to go in the why of this, because something is quite strange here. Why would a function, if a number is truly a primitive, do anything except throw a type error of some sort? A primitive is not an object per the specification’s definition, seemingly, as an object is certainly not one of the types Undefined, Null, Boolean, Number, Symbol, or String.

Not-Quite-Simple Points: 3


So, maybe a function might take things that are not an Object, even though its intention is to compare two objects. The specification’s definition is actually quite simple:

4.3.3 object
member of the type Object
An object is a collection of properties and has a single prototype object. The prototype may be the null value.

Now, this specifically says an Object has a single prototype object. This wording implies that a prototype is definitely not a primitive like a number, and is a type of object, so let’s investigate it:

4.3.5 prototype
object that provides shared properties for other objects
When a constructor creates an object, that object implicitly references the constructor’s prototype property for the purpose of resolving property references. The constructor’s prototype property can be referenced by the program expression constructor.prototype, and properties added to an object’s prototype are shared, through inheritance, by all objects sharing the prototype. Alternatively, a new object may be created with an explicitly specified prototype by using the Object.create built‑in function.

Let’s look at what we have learned so far.

  • Primitives are supposed to be the simplest possible thing in the language, defined at the lowest level
  • An Object’s Prototype may be Null, which is technically considered a primitive per the definitions we got from the spec
  • Prototypes seem to be the root of most everything

This Prototype can be Null thing seems a bit odd, since Null is supposed to be a primitive and Prototype is stated to be an object.

Not-Quite-Simple Points: 4

It turns out, after diving into the Prototype spec, we can find another interesting tidbit:

There is a Number object

Not-Quite-Simple Points: 5

The Number Object

Well, let’s look at the spec for this Number Object, and note some of its entries listed nearby:

4.3.20 Number value
primitive value corresponding to a double‑precision 64‑bit binary format IEEE 754‑2008 value
A Number value is a member of the Number type and is a direct representation of a number.
4.3.21 Number type
set of all possible Number values including the special “Not‑a‑Number” (NaN) value, positive infinity, and negative infinity
4.3.22 Number object
member of the Object type that is an instance of the standard built‑in Number constructor
A Number object is created by using the Number constructor in a new expression, supplying a number value as an argument. The resulting object has an internal slot whose value is the number value. A Number object can be coerced to a number value by calling the Number constructor as a function (

So our prior confusion about why would take a number is settled. There is a Number object. The Number type as well and it seems to make sense. But when we look into the specifics of the Object, and check its note, we see something interesting. Let’s examine what exactly it means by “has an internal slot whose value is the number value”, and “can be coerced to a number value”.

Not-Quite-Simple Points: 6

> new Number
[Number: 0]
> new Number(-0)
[Number: -0]
> new Number(+0)
> [Number: 0]

So these are pretty clearly objects. The main reasoning is that this is clearly a key/value pair and that is the core of the Object type in JavaScript (unless its Null, as we learned earlier). What makes this different, if at all outside this? Well, we could find out more by looking at the constructor information at, but let’s toy around a bit first:

> one = new Number(1);
[Number: 1]
> one == 1;
> one === 1;
>, 1);
> zero = new Number(0);
[Number: 0]
> zero == 0
> zero === 0
> if(0) { console.log("here"); }
> if(zero) { console.log("here"); }

Not-Quite-Simple Points: 7

So now we can see some new data to ponder on. The instance of the number Object strictly equals the primitive Number value 1. However, declares them as disparate items. And if we bring in zero, it breaks booleans. We should never execute the code from that final if block. The reason this occurs is because it is an object and wont evaluate to false.

Hold on

At this point, we have dove pretty far down a rabbit hole. And in continuing to research this, I came to a realization.

Managing Complexity Is Our Job

We didn’t even really answer all the questions that were just brought up in that entire dive. If you’re like me, you’re probably quite confused and have even more questions jotted down.

What we did was look at a Primitive. These are the means of construction in the language. By diving into the true identity of something that is the most basic building block, we have unraveled a web of observations, idiosyncrasies, and new pieces of knowledge to work off of. This isn’t because JavaScript is bad, or because Brendan Eich really is plotting our demise as software developers. It is because complexity is a reality of systems. When things get to a certain point, large decisions might be made to take new directions. One could look at CofeeScript, TypeScript, Elm, and the myriad of other JS replacements I am not listing and conclude that there may be an issue at the origin here. However that is beside the point.

These realities are inevitably going to be a part of systems we build. Our job is to manage complexity, not to eliminate it. It is a Sisyphean endeavour to try for the latter idea.