Java

why wouldn't it?

2==2 yields the Boolean true
Boolean.toString(true) yields "true"
"true" equals "true" yields true
if(true) will execute the block.

right?

File: 18671780_822827657865560_1408710611990151207_o.jpg (109KB, 725x960px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 725x960px

can you explain what you think should happen?

>>61149193
java is the most unforgiving strict language out there, but it accepts this.

really now.
not to mention the -10 which is also accepted.

>>61149167
2 == 2 is true
true to string is true
So it seems alright

File: 636536465436.jpg (23KB, 273x457px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 273x457px

>>61149167
Is this homework or are you a dumbass

>>61149229
Why the fuck wouldn't it accept "true".equals("true") as true?

>>61149244
"true" is not an object as apposed to

String comp="true";

if(comp.equals("true")){
syso("true");
}

>>61149453
Try
System.out.println("true".equals("true"));

>>61149229
You can write equivalent code even in Haskell. Few languages prevent programmers from writing correct but stupid code.

>>61149167
>Boolean.toString(a==b).equals("true")
dude what

Are you being intentionally dense

>>61149167

If this was for testing Java's quirks, I get it. If not, the boolean and String operations are completely unnecessary.

int a=2, b=4;
if(a==b)
System.out.println("it worked");

File: mathsinjava.jpg (57KB, 674x490px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 674x490px

>>61149167

>>61149453

>"true" is not an object
Bullshit. It's a string. Strings are not primitives in Java, they are objects.

>>61149167
why wouldn't it work? looks perfectly reasonable

File: 1482512783510.jpg (55KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x480px

>>61149167

>>61152286
It's actually an object in the string literal pool, it's cached. Not that it matters in this case. I still don't get OP's confusion with the snippet.