this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
86 points (86.4% liked)

Programming

17537 readers
273 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Ew no.

Abusing language features like this (boolean expression short circuit) just makes it harder for other people to come and maintain your code.

The function does have opportunity for improvement by checking one thing at a time. This flattens the ifs and changes them into proper sentry clauses. It also opens the door to encapsulating their logic and refactoring this function into a proper validator that can return all the reasons a user is invalid.

Good code is not "elegant" code. It's code that is simple and unsurprising and can be easily understood by a hungover fresh graduate new hire.

[–] hex 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I mean, boolean short circuit is a super idiomatic pattern in Javascript

[–] arendjr 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think that’s very team/project dependent. I’ve seen it done before indeed, but I’ve never been on a team where it was considered idiomatic.

[–] hex 1 points 1 month ago

That makes sense.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because on JS the goal is to shave bytes to save money on data transfer rates

[–] hex 2 points 1 month ago

It's not that deep. It looks nice, and is easy to understand.

load more comments (10 replies)